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 traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'check'), requires live mode, and returns specific data (status, amounts, price, market). However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid order_id) or rate limits, leaving minor gaps in full transparency.

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 and constraints, all in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., when to use, how to get order_id, live mode restriction) with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, constraints, and return data. However, the absence of an output schema means the description must fully explain return values, which it does partially by listing fields but not their formats or potential null cases, leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the order_id parameter. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the order_id ('from the response of the placing tool or from orders.list'), providing practical context beyond the schema's basic definition. This enhances understanding but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema details.

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 ('Check the live state') and resource ('a specific Polymarket limit order by its order_id'), distinguishing it from siblings like orders.list (which lists orders) or orders.cancel (which cancels orders). It explicitly mentions what it returns (order status, filled amount, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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: 'Use after orders.buy, orders.batch, or wta.bid to track fill progress, or to verify that an orders.cancel call succeeded.' It also specifies 'Only works in live mode,' indicating a key constraint. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and sets context for its application.

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