Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's action but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). The example hint adds minimal context, but overall, it's insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation support.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing source and example. It's front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds value (purpose and usage hint). However, it could be slightly more structured by separating guidelines into distinct points, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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 complexity (a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format, and how it differs from similar tools. While it covers basic purpose and parameter hints, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the parameters (market and limit). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the market parameter with an example ('Example: market=0x...') and hinting at its source, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 top holders for a market.' It specifies the resource (holders) and verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_market_by_id' or 'get_liquidity' by focusing on holder data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_positions' or 'get_trader_leaderboard,' which might also involve user/holder information, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'Source: market conditionId from list_markets' and giving an example, which implies when to use it (after obtaining a market ID from list_markets). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_positions' or 'get_trader_leaderboard,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, keeping it at an implied level.

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