Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'scanning' and 'identifying' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The 'Pro feature' hint suggests potential access restrictions, but this isn't elaborated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each add value: stating the core function, explaining what convergence signals indicate, and noting it's a pro feature. There's no wasted text, though the 'Pro feature' statement could be more informative about what that entails.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list of markets? confidence scores?), doesn't mention performance characteristics, and provides minimal behavioral context. The 'Pro feature' hint suggests access restrictions but doesn't clarify them. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how these parameters interact or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: scanning top leaderboard traders for convergence signals where multiple top traders are buying the same outcome simultaneously. It specifies the action (scan/identify), resource (top traders), and outcome (smart money convergence signals). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling analysis tools like 'traders.analyze' or 'traders.score', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Pro feature' but doesn't explain what that means in practice or how it differs from other analysis tools like 'analysis.arbitrage' or 'analysis.opportunity'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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