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 effectively states the tool is 'Read-only analysis, does not place trades,' clarifying it's a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific output format beyond 'score with detailed reasoning,' leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral details, using only two sentences with zero waste. Every sentence adds essential value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (analysis with one parameter) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. However, it could be more complete by specifying the output format (e.g., score range or reasoning structure) or error handling, which would help an agent interpret results better.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'condition_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Generate a BUY/SELL/HOLD recommendation') and resource ('a Polymarket market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analysis.arbitrage or analysis.price_history by focusing on trading opportunity analysis rather than arbitrage detection or historical data retrieval.

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 ('analyzing price, spread, price trend, and liquidity depth'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as analysis.compare or traders.analyze, which might also involve analysis.

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