Polymarket Agent Mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns specific fields (ID, market question, side, size, limit price, age), mode dependency ('Only works in live mode (returns an empty list in preview)'), and access control ('Pro feature'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second gives usage contexts, third specifies return data, fourth provides alternative, fifth covers mode constraints, sixth notes access. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: covers purpose, usage, return fields, alternatives, mode constraints, and access. It doesn't explain the exact output structure (e.g., array format), but given the lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 correctly states 'No parameters' and doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all open limit orders') with specific scope ('pending/unfilled', 'resting on Polymarket's order book for this account'). It distinguishes from siblings like orders.status (single order detail) and orders.cancel (removal).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after placing limit orders via orders.buy or wta.bid to confirm acceptance' and 'before orders.cancel to preview what will be removed'. Also provides an alternative: 'For deeper detail on a single order, call orders.status with its order_id'.

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