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 key behavioral traits: the requirement for parent parameters to avoid a 422 error, and it gives an example. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the schema's default values, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves gaps.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then provides critical usage notes and an example. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining requirements and errors. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient with no wasted words.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the essential usage context and error avoidance, but lacks details on output format, pagination beyond defaults, or broader behavioral constraints. This is adequate for basic use but leaves room for improvement in a rich 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it emphasizes the practical necessity of 'parent_entity_type' and 'parent_entity_id' with an example, but doesn't provide additional context for other parameters. 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: 'List comments from Gamma API /comments.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('comments'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_comment_by_id' or 'get_user_activity', which might also involve comments, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool ('Requires parent_entity_type and parent_entity_id in practice') and offers alternatives ('use list_events/list_series/list_markets to get IDs'). It also warns about potential errors ('otherwise Gamma often returns 422'), which helps the agent avoid misuse. This is comprehensive guidance.

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