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. It discloses the tool's behavior: fetching live prices from a CLOB order book and optionally including position values. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, which are important for a tool accessing live market data.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter interaction. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and efficiently covers edge cases.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameter logic, but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or data freshness—important for a live price tool. It's minimally viable but could be more complete for this complexity.

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 well. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between parameters: if condition_id is omitted and show_positions is true, it returns prices for all open positions. This clarifies the conditional logic beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('live bid/ask/spread prices from the CLOB order book for a specific market'), specifying the data source and type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'markets.watch_price' or 'analysis.price_history' by focusing on live order book prices rather than historical data or watchlist prices.

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 on when to use the tool: when condition_id is given for a specific market, or when omitted with show_positions=true for all open positions. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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