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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Find' and 'Returns'), specifies what data is returned (market question, price, volume, end date), and mentions filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but provides sufficient context for basic use.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return values. Second sentence provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 read-only discovery tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what data it returns. The main gap is lack of output format details (structure of returned data), but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only mentions the 'ending' parameter with examples ('today' and 'all'). 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 verb 'Find' and resource 'active Polymarket prediction markets' with specific filtering criteria (resolution deadline and category). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like markets.search, markets.trending, or markets.featured by focusing on discovery with deadline/category filtering rather than general search, trending analysis, or featured content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use ending='today' for fast-resolving markets, or 'all' to browse everything.' This gives clear context for parameter selection and distinguishes it from alternatives like markets.search (general search) or markets.trending (popularity-based).

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