List Polymarket trader rankings by profit or volume across 1d, 7d, 30d, or all-time windows.
List Polymarket leaderboard rows. Returns trader leaderboard rows. The window enum accepts 1d, 7d, 30d, and all; the sort_by enum accepts profit and volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows, defaults to 20 and supports up to 100 | |
| window | No | Leaderboard time window | |
| sort_by | No | Leaderboard sort |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / sort_by / enumAdded value: +[
+ "profit",
+ "volume"
+]Input schema / properties / window / enumAdded value: +[
+ "1d",
+ "7d",
+ "30d",
+ "all"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read, but it never states read-only semantics, whether results are paginated beyond the limit, ordering, or any auth/rate constraints. It only restates enum values rather than disclosing behavior.
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 first two sentences say the same thing ("List Polymarket leaderboard rows" / "Returns trader leaderboard rows"), and the third sentence merely echoes enum values already present in the schema. Little of the text earns its place.
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 simple, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool the description is minimally sufficient, since all three parameters are documented in the schema. Still, it omits default/limit behavior context and any guidance on how the rows are ordered or paginated.
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 limit, window, and sort_by. The description's enum restatement duplicates that information rather than adding format, default, or interaction details, so it lands at the high-coverage baseline.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ("List Polymarket leaderboard rows") and adds that rows are trader entries, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any sibling tool or name an alternative, so it stops short of 5.
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?
Nothing tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus the many other polymarket_* endpoints (e.g. polymarket_predictions, polymarket_homepage_feed). There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.