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 the return format ('pass/fail with specific reasons') and hints at a 'Pro feature' (possibly implying access restrictions), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'pass' versus 'fail' beyond the parameters.

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, followed by usage guidance and a feature note, all in three concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 adequately covers the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or the exact format of the 'specific reasons' in the return. It is minimally viable but has gaps given the complexity of a quality evaluation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters (token_id, max_spread, min_depth). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('evaluate market quality') and resources ('bid/ask spread, order book depth, price range'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analysis.price_history or analysis.opportunity by focusing on quality assessment rather than price data or opportunity identification.

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 the tool ('use before placing trades to avoid illiquid or wide-spread markets'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as analysis.compare or markets.search.

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