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 behavioral traits: idempotency ('safe to call when the monitor is not running'), what it doesn't do ('Does NOT close open positions'), and the return value ('Returns a short confirmation string'). It also mentions it's a 'Pro feature,' which adds context about access requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying limitations, idempotency, return value, and feature tier), with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (a control operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and limitations. However, it could slightly enhance completeness by specifying error conditions or confirming the exact format of the 'short confirmation string,' though this is minor.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage. The description appropriately states 'No parameters,' which aligns with the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Stop the background wallet monitoring loop') and identifies the resource ('started by monitor.start'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like monitor.start. It explicitly defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'to end a copy-trading session, before changing bot configuration... or when switching between preview and live modes') and when not to use it ('Does NOT close open positions — use positions.close or positions.set_exit_rules separately'). It names specific alternative tools for related actions.

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