graph-polymarket-mcp

get_market_data

Fetch Polymarket market data, including outcomes and volumes, from the Main subgraph. Use parameters to limit the number of results and customize ordering.

Instructions

Get Polymarket market/condition data including outcomes and volumes from the Main subgraph

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_market_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`first`	No	Number of markets to return (1-100)
`orderBy`	No	Field to order by	id
`orderDirection`	No	Sort direction	desc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0May 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that this is a data-retrieval operation from the Main subgraph and that results include outcomes and volumes, but it does not describe pagination behavior, return shape, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loads the verb and resource, and is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (three optional parameters, no nested objects), and the description covers the basic resource and source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more explicit about return shape and filtering/sorting behavior beyond what the schema names imply, and it lacks sibling differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and defaults, so the schema already covers parameter semantics. The description adds no extra detail about how first/orderBy/orderDirection behave.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'Polymarket market/condition data' with content ('outcomes and volumes') and source ('Main subgraph'). It is clear what the tool does but does not explicitly distinguish it from similarly named siblings such as get_market_info or query_subgraph.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention use cases that map to query_subgraph, get_market_info, or search_markets, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.