Retrieve one Polymarket market by ID and return structured JSON without wallet, token, cookies, or account authentication. Use it to inspect specific market details.
Get Polymarket market detail by id. Returns one Polymarket market. This endpoint does not require a Polymarket user token, wallet signature, cookies, or personal account authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Polymarket market id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important behavioral trait: no user token, wallet signature, cookies, or account authentication is required. It does not mention other useful behaviors such as read-only/idempotent semantics, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid id, so transparency remains partial.
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?
Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, cardinality second, authentication third. Each sentence adds a distinct useful fact, with no filler or repetition that does not earn 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 low-complexity, single-parameter read-only detail endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: id-based lookup, single-result cardinality, and no-auth accessibility. It could add more about the returned market shape or invalid-id behavior, but it is largely sufficient.
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?
The schema covers the single 'id' parameter at 100% with its own description ('Polymarket market id'), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates lookup-by-id and adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Polymarket market detail'), and adds cardinality ('one market') that helps separate it from list-style siblings like polymarket_markets. However it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from other Polymarket detail endpoints such as polymarket_event_detail, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 'by id' phrasing implies the tool is for looking up a single market when its id is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use guidance, or mention of alternatives like polymarket_markets or polymarket_event_detail. Adequate implied usage, not full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.