Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'the most liquid and actively traded markets', which gives some behavioral context about ranking and filtering. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key features. The first sentence covers the main action and parameters, while the second adds context about the return criteria. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or sibling tool differentiation. Without annotations or an output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for a read operation.

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 fully documents both parameters ('category' and 'limit'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 'optional category filter' and listing categories, but this is redundant with the schema. It doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as how 'limit' interacts with ranking or default behavior.

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: 'List top Polymarket markets ranked by liquidity' with an 'optional category filter'. It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('Polymarket markets'), and ranking criteria ('liquidity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'markets.trending' or 'markets.search', which might also list markets with different ranking criteria.

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 mentioning 'top' markets 'ranked by liquidity' and 'most liquid and actively traded markets', suggesting this tool is for finding high-liquidity markets. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'markets.trending' or 'markets.search', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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