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 'alerts' and 'monitor for resolution' but lacks critical details: whether this creates a persistent subscription, what format alerts take, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how to unsubscribe (though 'unsubscribe_realtime' exists as a sibling). For a subscription tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing context/example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the example syntax 'market_ids=[conditionId]' is slightly ambiguous (brackets vs. actual array), and the source list could be more efficiently formatted.

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 complexity (subscription with real-time behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after subscription, alert delivery mechanisms, error handling, or relationship to 'unsubscribe_realtime'. For a subscription tool in this context, more behavioral and operational details are needed.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'condition IDs' (implied for market_ids) and provides a brief example, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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's purpose: 'Subscribe to market resolution alerts by condition IDs.' It specifies the verb ('subscribe'), resource ('market resolution alerts'), and key parameter ('condition IDs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'subscribe_market_prices' or 'subscribe_orderbook_updates' beyond mentioning different alert types.

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 source tools ('list_markets/list_active_markets/get_market_by_slug') and an example, which implies when to use this tool (after obtaining condition IDs from those sources). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'subscribe_market_prices' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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