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 discloses that results are sorted by volume and includes an example with parameters, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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: the first states the purpose and key usage context, and the second provides a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 list operation with sorting and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and an example, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits like read-only status. For a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, it should do more to be fully comprehensive.

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 the three parameters (limit, offset, order) with their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'limit=20, order=volume24hr' as an example, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage nuances. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('active markets'), and specifies the sorting criteria ('sorted by volume'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_market_by_id' or 'list_events', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_markets' or 'filter_markets_by_category', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning that results can be used for 'CLOB or Data API tools' with specific fields ('clobTokenIds/conditionId'), which helps guide when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_markets' or 'filter_markets_by_category'), missing full alternative guidance.

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