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. While it mentions 'limit applies per type (events/markets/profiles)', it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, search algorithm details, or what happens when no results are found. The description provides minimal behavioral context for a search operation.

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 that both add value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a concrete example. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (structure of results, what fields are included), how results are ranked, whether it's a fuzzy or exact match search, or error conditions. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds the example 'query=trump, limit=3' which provides concrete usage, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 searches for 'markets, events, and profiles using text search', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_markets', 'filter_markets_by_category', or 'get_markets_by_tag', which also retrieve market data through different mechanisms.

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 many sibling tools that retrieve market/event data (list_markets, filter_markets_by_category, get_markets_by_tag, get_event_by_id, etc.), there's no indication of when text search is preferred over other filtering methods or when this tool should be avoided.

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