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 delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains the irreversible nature ('Not reversible'), the need to preview with orders.list, the live-mode requirement ('Only works in live mode (no-op in preview)'), the return value ('Returns the count of cancelled orders'), and the pro feature status.

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, followed by usage guidelines, behavioral details, and technical notes. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second provides usage contexts, the third covers irreversibility and alternatives, the fourth explains return value and preview recommendation, and the fifth adds mode and feature constraints.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral traits (irreversibility, preview recommendation, live-mode requirement), return information, and feature constraints, leaving no gaps for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately states 'No parameters' and doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 ('Cancel ALL open/pending limit orders') on a specific resource ('on Polymarket for this account') with a specific scope ('in a single call'). It distinguishes from siblings like orders.list (for preview) and orders.buy/wta.bid/orders.batch (for re-placing orders).

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 explicitly provides multiple when-to-use scenarios ('emergency stop, before changing strategy, after a sudden price move, or when unwinding positions'), when-not-to-use alternatives ('Not reversible — cancelled orders must be re-placed via orders.buy, wta.bid, or orders.batch'), and prerequisites ('Call orders.list first if you want to preview what will be cancelled').

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