Check a closed Polymarket market's settlement result by slug: returns 1 for YES, 0 for NO, 0.5 for void, or settled=false if not yet settled.
Settlement result for a closed market (1 = YES, 0 = NO, 0.5 = void/50-50). Returns settled=false if the market has not settled yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Market slug |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it communicates the settled=false case and the exact settlement values, going beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradictions found.
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 short sentences convey the tool's purpose, output values, and unsettled behavior with no redundant phrasing. The settlement value mapping is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
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 one-parameter getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the meaningful edge case (unsettled market) and the value semantics an agent needs to interpret the result.
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%, with the only parameter 'slug' described as 'Market slug'. The description does not add further detail about slug format or accepted values, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning settlement results for a closed market and explicitly defines the three possible values (1, 0, 0.5). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on prices, order books, or market discovery.
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 description states it applies to a closed market and clarifies behavior when the market has not settled yet, providing clear contextual usage. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over market data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.