Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions filtering and sorting capabilities without disclosing critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. The example adds minimal context but leaves major gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 with two sentences: one stating purpose and filters, another providing integration context and example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the integration note could be more streamlined. No wasted sentences, but the example feels slightly tacked on.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior beyond mentioning limit, error conditions, or how multiple filters interact. The integration context is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency needed for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing filter types (active/closed/tag/date/sort) and providing a brief example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how active and closed filters combine) or add meaningful semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema.

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 ('markets') with the scope of filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_active_markets' by mentioning broader filters beyond just active status, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'filter_markets_by_category' or 'search_markets'.

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 context by mentioning 'conditionId for Data API and clobTokenIds for CLOB tools,' suggesting integration points, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_markets' or 'filter_markets_by_category.' No when-not-to-use guidance or clear prerequisites are provided.

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