get_event_by_idFetch a Polymarket event by ID to view its markets, structured groups, combo-enabled markets, and player props with optional query filters.
Retrieve a specific event by its ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Event ID | |
| 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 nothing beyond that — no mention of what the nested query options do to the response, whether unknown IDs error or return empty, or how large the returned event payload is.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps in other dimensions rather than pure economy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say more about what an event record contains, but the fully documented input schema and complete annotations cover the mechanics of calling it. An agent can invoke it correctly; it just cannot predict the response shape or why to prefer it over sibling lookups.
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%, so both the id field and the nested query object (groups, comboEnabledOnly, includePopularPlayerProps) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a specific event by its ID"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_event_by_slug or get_event_by_partner_external_id, which look up the same resource via a different key.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other event lookups in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone that this is the ID-based variant, with no stated exclusions or preference rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.