polymarket-trader-mcp

analysis.holders

Identify largest position holders in a Polymarket market by condition ID. View wallet address, position size, and side (YES/NO) to gauge smart money sentiment and predict market moves.

Instructions

View the largest position holders in a Polymarket market by condition_id. Shows wallet address, position size, and side (YES/NO). Useful for gauging smart money sentiment on a market.

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_id": "<condition_id>"
    },
    "name": "analysis.holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`condition_id`	Yes	Polymarket market condition ID to find top holders for
`limit`	No	Maximum number of top holders to return

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation and mentions output fields, but lacks detail on error handling, data freshness, or behavior on invalid condition_id.

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 with no filler: first states purpose and key parameter, second describes output and use case. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output fields, and a use case. Could mention sorting or return format but is largely complete.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds minor context about output (wallet address, position size, side) but largely restates schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View the largest position holders...' with a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like analysis.flow or analysis.compare by focusing on holders and sentiment.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('gauging smart money sentiment'), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or discuss 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.