Polymarket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying it's a read-only function, which is consistent with typical 'get' tools. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The example adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage, with an example that clarifies application. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job by explaining purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on what the output contains (e.g., structure of assets and chains) or any behavioral constraints, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage without redundant parameter info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get bridge-supported assets and chains.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('bridge-supported assets and chains'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bridge_quote' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite, which keeps it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to fill get_bridge_quote params.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for 'get_bridge_quote') and names the alternative tool, helping the agent understand the workflow and avoid misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.