Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is shown (price, spread, order book depth, volume, quality score), which adds useful context beyond basic comparison. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (comparison of multiple markets), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and data shown, but could benefit from mentioning output format or limitations. However, it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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%, with the parameter 'condition_ids' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the IDs are for markets, which is already clear from context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('compare'), resource ('Polymarket markets'), and scope ('2-5 markets side by side'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying comparison functionality rather than analysis of arbitrage, flow, holders, etc., which are different analytical operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful for choosing the best market to trade among similar options.' This provides clear context for usage (comparison for trading decisions) and implicitly suggests alternatives like analysis.quality for individual market quality or markets.search for finding markets, though not explicitly named.

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