polymarket-trader-mcp

analysis.quality

Evaluate market quality by analyzing bid/ask spread, order book depth, and price range. Get pass/fail results with specific reasons to avoid illiquid or wide-spread markets before placing trades.

Instructions

Evaluate market quality by checking bid/ask spread, order book depth, and price range. Returns a pass/fail with specific reasons. Use before placing trades to avoid illiquid or wide-spread markets. Pro feature.

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": {
      "token_id": "<token_id>"
    },
    "name": "analysis.quality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token_id`	Yes	Market token ID from the CLOB order book
`max_spread`	No	Max acceptable spread (default: 0.10)
`min_depth`	No	Min $ depth per side (default: $50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only evaluation (no mutation) and mentions return format, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 redundancy. The first covers function and output, the second offers usage guidance and flags 'Pro feature'. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type (pass/fail with reasons) and usage context. It omits edge cases but covers the primary workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context by linking parameters to the checks (spread, depth, price range), reinforcing their purpose beyond the schema.

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 evaluates market quality by checking bid/ask spread, order book depth, and price range, returning pass/fail with reasons. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like 'analysis.arbitrage' or 'analysis.compare'.

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?

It explicitly advises using the tool before placing trades to avoid illiquid or wide-spread markets, providing clear context. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling names implicitly guide when to use other tools.

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