Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'public' (implying no authentication needed) and describes pagination behavior, but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is real-time vs. cached. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by practical usage information (pagination parameters and example). Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, 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's moderate complexity (public data retrieval with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and pagination mechanism but lacks details about response format, data freshness, sorting criteria, or error handling. For a leaderboard tool that likely returns structured ranking data, more context would be helpful.

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%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning these are for 'pagination' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or constraints beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline 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 trader leaderboard (public)' specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('trader leaderboard'), with 'public' indicating accessibility. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_builder_leaderboard', which serves a similar function for a different resource type.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning pagination parameters ('limit/offset for pagination') and giving an example ('limit=50, offset=0'), which suggests when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_builder_leaderboard' or other leaderboard-related tools, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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