Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'each series can include a large events array' which provides some behavioral context about potential response size, but doesn't address rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like beyond the example 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 concise with two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides an example and clarifies the limit parameter scope. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple list operation with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple similar sibling tools, it should provide more context about what 'series' are and when to use this specific listing tool versus others in the API.

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%, with both parameters (limit, offset) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example (limit=1, offset=0) and noting that 'limit applies to series count', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context.

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 action ('List series') and source ('from the Gamma API'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_events', 'list_markets', or 'list_comments' that also list resources from the same API.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling listing tools (list_series, list_events, list_markets, list_comments), there's no indication of what distinguishes series from events or markets, or when an agent should choose one over another.

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