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. It mentions the tool's utility ('discovering correlated markets' and 'building a diversified position'), which adds behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and usage context, but for a tool that returns data (markets), the lack of output schema means the description could benefit from mentioning the return format or structure to enhance completeness for the agent.

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 parameters (condition_id, query, limit) with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between condition_id and query or providing examples of 'topic keyword' beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Find Polymarket markets related to a given condition_id or topic keyword.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('Polymarket markets'), and scope ('related to'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'markets.search' or 'markets.discover', which might have overlapping functionality for market 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 usage: 'Useful for discovering correlated markets or building a diversified position across related events.' This implies when to use it (for correlation and diversification), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'markets.search' for general searches or 'markets.discover' for broader discovery.

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