Retrieve every prediction market for a specific Polymarket event using its event ID or slug. Ideal for seeing all tradable outcomes for one event.
Get all markets for a specific event. Returns all markets belonging to the event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | No | Event ID (alternative to slug) | |
| event_slug | No | Event slug (e.g., 'presidential-election-2024') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it returns all markets for an event, but does not disclose whether both event_id and event_slug are alternatives, what happens if neither is provided, or if the response is empty for invalid events. This is a minimal, non-informative description for a read operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action. However, the second clause ('Returns all markets belonging to the event') is somewhat redundant with the first, adding minor redundancy without substantive new information. Still concise overall.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits crucial usage details such as the need to provide at least one of the two identifiers, the distinction between the two, and what happens with invalid input. This leaves an agent uncertain about how to correctly invoke the tool.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about the relationship between event_id and event_slug, their optionality, or which should be used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all markets for a specific event'. It is distinct from siblings like get_market_details (single market) and search_markets (query-based), and the event-scoped scope is unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for fetching markets tied to an event, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_market_details or search_markets, nor does it note the requirement to supply either event_id or event_slug. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.