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 communicates critical behavioral traits: that this is a destructive action ('uses real money'), requires specific setup ('API credentials'), and is a 'Pro feature' (implying access restrictions). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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 extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: the action, prerequisites, and consequences. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 high-stakes mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering the destructive nature, prerequisites, and feature tier. However, it lacks information about what happens after switching (e.g., confirmation message, time to take effect) or potential side effects, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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, fully documenting the single 'confirm' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('Switch from preview to live trading mode') and the resource ('Polymarket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like config.dashboard or config.safety_limits. It explicitly mentions real orders and money, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('Switch from preview to live trading mode') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires API credentials configured in environment'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related actions.

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