Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: changes take effect immediately, persist across restarts, and it's a 'Pro feature' (implying potential access restrictions). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but covers the essential runtime behavior adequately.

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 perfectly sized at 3 sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and feature classification. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about immediate effect and persistence. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on invalid values or error responses, but covers the essential operational context well given the tool's complexity level.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (just mentioning the two config keys by name). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Update bot configuration at runtime') and identifies the exact resources being modified ('daily_budget' and 'min_conviction'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like config.dashboard or config.history by focusing on runtime configuration updates rather than monitoring or historical data access.

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 ('at runtime', 'Pro feature') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like config.safety_limits or config.go_live. It mentions the tool's capabilities but lacks clear guidance on specific scenarios or prerequisites for choosing this tool over other config tools.

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