Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a read-only operation ('View'), describes what data is returned, and hints at analytical purpose. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether the data is real-time vs. historical. The description adds basic behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and parameters, second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only analytical tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks details about return format, data freshness, or error conditions. Given the complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage), it's minimally complete but could better address behavioral aspects.

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 both parameters. The description mentions 'condition_id' and implies 'limit' through 'largest' and 'top holders', but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('View the largest position holders'), identifies the resource ('Polymarket market by condition_id'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on holder analysis rather than market discovery, price tracking, or trading operations. It explicitly mentions what data is shown (wallet address, position size, side).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for gauging smart money sentiment on a market'), which implicitly suggests it's for analytical insight rather than trading execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings.

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