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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and gives an example, but doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by usage context and an example. Both sentences earn their place by adding clarity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from examples). Overall, it's efficient with zero waste.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format or error handling. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but not 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 already fully documents the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example ('limit=20, offset=0'), but doesn't explain parameter semantics or constraints further. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 sports teams with pagination.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('sports teams'), and includes pagination as a key feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sports_metadata' or 'list_events' which might also relate to sports data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 guidance with 'Use to map team names/abbreviations in sports markets,' which implies a context for when this tool is helpful. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_sports_metadata' or other list tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, making the guidance incomplete.

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