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: the tool performs mutations (add/remove), includes price alert functionality, and links alerts to 'check_exits'. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens when alerts trigger beyond showing up in check_exits. This is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second explains the alert consequence. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 moderately complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool. It covers the purpose, actions, and alert linkage but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values. For a tool with mutation capabilities and no structured safety hints, it should provide more behavioral context.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional price alert thresholds' which aligns with alert_below/alert_above parameters. This meets the baseline 3 when schema does 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 with specific verbs ('add, remove, or list') and resource ('watched markets'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'markets.watch_price' (price monitoring) and 'watchlist.add' (generic watchlist). It explicitly mentions managing a market watchlist with price alert thresholds.

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 by stating it's for managing a market watchlist and mentions that alerts trigger 'check_exits' (referencing sibling tool 'positions.check_exits'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'watchlist.add' or 'markets.watch_price'. The guidance is implied through the action-focused description.

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