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 key behaviors: it runs continuously in the background, polls at a specified interval, automatically copies trades, and requires a pro feature. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource usage or error handling during polling.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core functionality, operational details, and prerequisites. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (background process with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and prerequisites. It could be more complete by detailing what 'automatically copies them' entails or error conditions, but it's largely adequate for understanding and use.

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, with the single parameter 'interval_seconds' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Start a background loop'), the resource ('watched wallets'), and the function ('polls for new trades and automatically copies them'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'monitor.stop' by indicating it initiates the monitoring process rather than stopping it.

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: when you want to start automated trading based on wallet monitoring. It mentions prerequisites ('Requires at least one wallet on the watchlist') and references an alternative ('until stop_monitor is called'), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other monitoring or trading tools in the sibling list.

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