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. It mentions the action ('Unsubscribe') and the parameter source, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or if there are side effects like stopping data streams. For a tool that likely modifies state, this is insufficient disclosure.

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, stating the purpose clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from examples, but overall it's efficient with no wasted words.

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 subscription management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects of unsubscribing, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that likely interacts with real-time systems, more context on implications and outcomes is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the parameter 'subscription_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by noting the source ('from subscribe_* response') and providing an example format, but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., what a subscription ID represents). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Unsubscribe from a real-time feed') and identifies the resource (a subscription). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source of subscription_id from subscribe_* responses, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from sibling unsubscribe tools if they existed.

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 implies when to use this tool (to stop a subscription) and provides context about the subscription_id source, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for any real-time feed or specific ones, or if there are other unsubscribe methods. The guidance is useful but not comprehensive.

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