polymarket-trader-mcp

analysis.compare

Compare 2 to 5 Polymarket markets side by side on price, spread, order book depth, volume, and quality score to identify the best trading opportunity among similar options.

Instructions

Compare 2-5 Polymarket markets side by side. Shows price, spread, order book depth, volume, and quality score for each market. Useful for choosing the best market to trade among similar options.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "condition_ids": "<condition_ids>"
    },
    "name": "analysis.compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`condition_ids`	Yes	2-5 condition IDs to compare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It lists outputs (price, spread, depth, volume, quality score) but does not mention whether data is real-time, whether it is read-only (implied), or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states function, second lists outputs and use case. No waste, perfectly front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose and outputs. Could mention format of condition_ids or return structure, but overall sufficient for tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter. Description adds minimal value beyond schema ('Compare 2-5 Polymarket markets' and output fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb (compare), resource (Polymarket markets), and scope (2-5). It distinguishes from siblings like analysis.opportunity or analysis.quality which focus on single markets or different aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description says 'Useful for choosing the best market to trade among similar options,' which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides clear differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.