graph-polymarket-mcp

get_recent_activity

Retrieve recent splits, merges, and redemptions from Polymarket's Activity subgraph. Optionally filter by Ethereum address to track specific trader actions.

Instructions

Get recent splits, merges, and redemptions from the Activity 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_recent_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`first`	No	Number of events to return
`account`	No	Optional: filter by Ethereum address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0May 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, output format, pagination behavior, or any time-bound definition of 'recent'.

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 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and leaves out all extraneous detail.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and the purpose is clear, the lack of annotations and the absence of any mention of output structure or temporal boundaries leaves some contextual gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource ('Activity subgraph') and enumerates the specific event types (splits, merges, redemptions), clearly distinguishing it from the broader sibling tools like 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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it complements query_subgraph or that account filtering is possible via parameters.

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