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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public data,' which implies read-only access, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the example with limit), or what the activity feed contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides concise usage guidance with an example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, data format) and doesn't leverage annotations or output schema to fill gaps. It's minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in context.

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 already documents all parameters (user, limit, offset) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by providing an example ('user=0xabc..., limit=50'), which hints at usage but doesn't add semantic details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline score 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 a user's activity feed (public data).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('user's activity feed'), and scope ('public data'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be direct alternatives for fetching user activity data.

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 'Use user address' and giving an example, which suggests when to use this tool (for retrieving activity feeds based on a user address). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of sibling tools like get_public_profile that might overlap) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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