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 describes the tool's behavior: browsing event groups, returning events with sub-markets and current prices. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination, which are important for a tool with a limit parameter and no output schema.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and scope, and the second specifies the return value, with no wasted words 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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output structure. Without an output schema, more information on the return format would be beneficial, though the description does mention 'event with all its sub-markets and their current prices'.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's purpose and output, which helps interpret parameters like 'slug' and 'query' in context. For example, it explains that 'slug' is for event lookups and 'query' is for searching events, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 ('browse', 'find', 'returns') and resources ('Polymarket event groups', 'markets under a single event'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like markets.search or markets.discover by focusing on event groups with sub-markets and prices, not general search or discovery.

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: to browse event groups and find all markets under a single event. It implies usage by mentioning examples like 'US Election' and 'UFC 300', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as markets.search for keyword-based queries.

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