Fetch public Polymarket CLOB midpoints for up to 25 token IDs without a user token, wallet signature, cookies, or account authentication.
Get Polymarket token midpoints. Returns public CLOB midpoints for up to 25 Polymarket token ids. This does not require a Polymarket user token, wallet signature, cookies, or personal account authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Token ids request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / body / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "token_ids": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / body / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "token_ids"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add genuinely useful context: the endpoint returns public CLOB midpoints and requires no user token, wallet signature, cookies, or account auth. However it omits rate limits, batching failure behavior, and any hint at response shape.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the batch limit front-loaded before the auth caveat. Every clause 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 read-only public endpoint with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the returned datum (midpoints), the input shape's limit, and the auth posture. It lacks output-shape or error-handling detail, but the tool's low complexity makes that a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100% but only documents an array of token ids generically. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating the batch cap of 25 ids, which the schema does not encode anywhere.
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 and resource ('Get Polymarket token midpoints') and clarifies the batch scope ('up to 25 Polymarket token ids'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling polymarket_token_midpoint or polymarket_tokens_spreads, so the agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction from the plural name alone.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (polymarket_token_midpoint for a single id, polymarket_tokens_spreads for spread data). The 'up to 25' clause implies batch usage but the agent gets no routing instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.