get_activitiesRetrieve a user's Polymarket activities—trades, position resolutions, and account balance changes—with filters for activity type, market, sort order, and pagination.
Get activities for a user including trades, position resolutions, and account balance changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Query parameters and pagination; use the exact field names shown. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the kinds of records returned, which is useful. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core content comes first. It is perhaps too terse given the tool's filtering surface, but nothing is wasted.
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 read-only, well-annotated listing tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by naming the activity categories, though the full set of nine types is not enumerated.
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% and every nested query field (limit, types, cursor, sortOrder, marketSlug) is documented inline with examples. The description contributes no additional meaning about filtering or pagination semantics, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (activities) and names examples of what those activities are: trades, position resolutions, account balance changes. It does not distinguish this list-of-activities tool from related siblings such as get_user_positions or get_account_balances, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of the position or balance siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implied usage is that scoping is 'for a user', which the agent has to interpret on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.