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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' updates and gives an example, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a persistent subscription, how updates are delivered (e.g., streaming vs polling), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a subscription tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing source/reference tools, and giving an example. It could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the core purpose more clearly, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity of a real-time subscription tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the subscription returns (e.g., update format, frequency), how to manage/unsubscribe, and error scenarios. The example helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'token_ids' in the main purpose and provides an example format, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. 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 real-time orderbook updates by token_ids'. It specifies the resource (orderbook updates) and the subscription mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'subscribe_market_prices' or 'subscribe_market_resolution', which prevents a perfect score.

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: list_active_markets/get_market_details' and 'Use get_realtime_status to inspect events', which implies prerequisites and complementary tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_order_book' or other subscription tools, leaving the guidelines somewhat 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.