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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a configuration tool that 'changes persist in the database' (indicating state mutation), affects 'all subsequent buy/sell operations' (scope of impact), and enforces guardrails (safety mechanism). It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential mutation behavior.

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 with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains enforcement scope, and the third clarifies persistence. There's zero wasted text or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the mutation behavior and persistence, but doesn't explain return values, error handling, or dependencies with other config tools. For a configuration tool with state changes, more detail on outcomes would be helpful.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by grouping parameters into 'trading safety guardrails' and mentioning 'maximum order size in USDC, total exposure cap, and maximum spread tolerance' (though it omits max_per_market and min_liquidity). This provides context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('configure trading safety guardrails') and resources ('maximum order size, total exposure cap, maximum spread tolerance'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on safety limit configuration rather than analysis, monitoring, or trading operations.

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 by stating 'enforced on all subsequent buy/sell operations,' suggesting it should be used before trading activities. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like config.set or config.go_live, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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