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 adds some context: it's a retrieval operation (implied read-only), returns trade details, and mentions it's a 'Pro feature' (hinting at access restrictions). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what happens if no trades match filters. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds return details, and the third notes the pro feature. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more concise (e.g., 'Returns details like entry price, P&L, and market info').

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a retrieval tool with 3 parameters. It covers the purpose, optional filters, return details, and access level. However, it lacks information on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits like rate limits, which would be beneficial for an AI agent to use it correctly without structured output guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit, trader, status) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filters by trader address or status,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Retrieve past copy trades from the database' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (past copy trades). It distinguishes from siblings like 'orders.list' or 'positions.list' by focusing on historical copy trades rather than current orders/positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential sibling tools in the extensive list.

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 implies usage context through 'optional filters by trader address or status' and 'Pro feature,' suggesting this is for analyzing historical copy trade data, possibly requiring a pro subscription. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'traders.backtest' or 'analysis.quality,' nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the pro feature mention.

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