Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns active markets sorted by volume' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what 'active markets' means operationally. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and return behavior, and one providing a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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 ranking tool with volume-based sorting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included), error conditions, or how ties in volume are handled. For a tool that likely returns structured market data, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (timeframe with enum values and default, limit with constraints and default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it provides an example ('timeframe=24h, limit=10') that reinforces defaults but doesn't explain parameter semantics like what 'trading volume' measures or how 'active markets' are defined. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 markets with highest trading volume for timeframe. Returns active markets sorted by volume.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('markets'), and key criteria ('highest trading volume', 'active markets sorted by volume'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_markets' or 'get_market_volume', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'list_markets', 'get_market_volume', 'get_featured_markets', and 'filter_markets_by_category', there's no indication of when this specific volume-based ranking tool is preferred. The example mentions parameters but doesn't address tool selection.

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