Retrieve public order-book depth for up to 25 Polymarket token IDs. No wallet or account authentication needed.
Get Polymarket token order books. Returns public CLOB order-book depth 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does contribute real value: it discloses that no user token, wallet signature, cookies, or account authentication are required, which tells the agent this is a safe public read. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or pagination/result 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the batch scope, then the auth clarification. No rephrasing of the name, though the final auth sentence is somewhat long relative to its informational content.
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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, batch limit, and auth requirements adequately. It leaves the return shape (depth format) and any failure modes unspecified, which an agent may need but is a secondary 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `token_ids` array. The description adds one meaningful constraint not present in the schema (a maximum of 25 token ids), but gives no format details for the ids themselves, so the addition is modest against the baseline of 3.
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 token order books') and specifies it returns CLOB order-book depth for up to 25 token ids. This implicitly distinguishes it from the singular `polymarket_token_orderbook` sibling, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction.
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 'up to 25 token ids' phrasing implies this is the batch variant, which hints at when to prefer it over the singular sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives such as `polymarket_token_orderbook`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.