Fetch Polymarket fee type data from Gamma using optional active and search filters. Get normalized, credential-free JSON for direct integration.
Polymarket fee types. Returns public fee type data from Polymarket Gamma. This is a normalized wrapper around credential-free public JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Optional upstream active filter | |
| search | No | Optional upstream search filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / active / enumAdded value: +[
+ "true",
+ "false"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the data is public, credential-free, and normalized, signaling a safe read operation. It does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or filter behavior, but for a simple public data fetch this is acceptable.
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 short and front-loads the key fact that this returns Polymarket fee types. The opening fragment 'Polymarket fee types.' is somewhat redundant with the next sentence, and 'normalized wrapper' is vague, but overall there is little wasted text.
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 credential-free read with two optional parameters, the description conveys the source, resource, and auth expectations. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be stronger if it stated what a fee type looks like or how the optional filters affect results.
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%, and the schema already documents both optional filters, 'active' and 'search'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the necessary work.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns public fee type data from Polymarket Gamma.' It distinguishes this tool from the many other Polymarket siblings by focusing on fee types, even though the tool name itself is generic.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for obtaining Polymarket fee types. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the many related Polymarket tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.