get_event_by_slugFetch a Polymarket US event by its slug to retrieve event details, with optional query flags for market groups, combo-enabled markets, and player props.
Retrieve an event by its slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Event slug | |
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of response shape, error behavior for missing slugs, or the effect of the nested query options such as groups or comboEnabledOnly.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity here comes at the cost of useful information.
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 tool sitting among three near-identical event getters and carrying a nested query object, the description is too thin. It should name the alternative identifier-based siblings and at least gesture at what the query flags change in the response.
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 slug and the nested query object fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the nested query object, so 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 names a clear verb and resource (retrieve an event) and implicitly keys on slug, which separates it from get_event_by_id and get_event_by_partner_external_id. However, it is close to a restatement of the tool name/title and never explicitly distinguishes itself from those sibling getters.
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 pick this over get_event_by_id, get_event_by_partner_external_id, or get_events. Nothing is said about what happens with an unknown slug or when the optional query flags should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.