get_quotesRetrieve Polymarket US quote records matching filters such as quote ID, RFQ ID, status, user scope, and pagination to inspect active, accepted, executed, confirmed, or deleted quotes.
Returns quotes matching the query filters.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or how filtering affects results.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in routing and behavioral guidance rather than delivering complete 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?
The schema and annotations are rich enough to support invocation: filters are fully described and the read-only, idempotent behavior is declared. However, the description does not help an agent choose this tool over nearby siblings or explain the return shape, leaving clear gaps for a complex nested-filter listing 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 description coverage is 100%, and the nested query object documents fields like limit, cursor, rfqId, quoteId, status, and user filters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb and resource: returns quotes, filtered by query parameters. It does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as get_rfqs or get_rfq_trades, so it falls short of a fully specific purpose statement.
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 get_quotes versus alternatives like get_rfqs, get_rfq_trades, create_quote, or delete_quote. The phrase 'matching the query filters' implies filtering but does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.