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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it runs a market quality check before executing, distinguishes between preview (simulation) and live (real order) modes, and mentions CLOB order placement. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on execution failure.

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 two sentences: the first covers the core functionality and parameters, the second explains the preview/live modes. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (financial trading tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key parameters, and operational modes. However, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a tool of this nature.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'condition_id, USDC amount, and optionally a limit price' but doesn't provide additional semantic context like examples or edge cases. 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 specific action ('buy outcome shares'), target resource ('on a Polymarket market'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like orders.sell (for selling) and orders.batch (for batch operations). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when to use this tool (for buying shares on Polymarket) and mentions preview vs. live modes, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., orders.sell for selling, orders.batch for batch operations). The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions.

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