Retrieve public CLOB spreads for up to 25 Polymarket token IDs without user tokens, wallet signatures, cookies, or account authentication.
Get Polymarket token spreads. Returns public CLOB spreads 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 well on the key trait: it explicitly states no user token, wallet signature, cookies, or account authentication is required, which is critical for an agent deciding whether it can call this. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or the shape of returned spreads.
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 tight sentences: purpose first, then return scope, then the auth caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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 batch read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, batch limit, and auth requirements adequately. Minor gaps remain around the format/semantics of a 'spread' value and error behavior, but the essential call prerequisites are present.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint not present in the schema: the array is capped at 25 token ids. That extra cardinality limit is genuinely useful and goes beyond what the schema documents.
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 spreads', 'Returns public CLOB spreads'). The phrase 'up to 25 Polymarket token ids' implies a batch operation, implicitly distinguishing it from the singular polymarket_token_spread sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The 'up to 25' limit hints at batch usage versus the singular polymarket_token_spread, but the agent must infer this rather than being told. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.