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 filtering and pagination, which is useful, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. The example helps but doesn't provide comprehensive behavioral context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, with the first stating the tool's function and the second providing an example and related tool context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'events' are in this context, what data is returned, how filtering parameters interact, or provide guidance on pagination strategy. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output context needed for proper tool usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'filters' generally and provides one example parameter combination ('active=true, limit=20'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide additional semantic context. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('events'), and mentions filtering and pagination capabilities. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_event_by_id' by indicating this is for listing rather than retrieving single events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'list_markets' or 'list_series' beyond the 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 some usage context by mentioning that event IDs from this tool can be used with other tools ('list_comments/get_event_by_id/get_live_volume'), which implies a workflow relationship. It gives a usage example ('active=true, limit=20') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_by_slug' or 'search_markets'.

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