Polymarket Agent Mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that this is a read-only operation ('View'), requires no parameters, and serves a monitoring purpose. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a financial tool.

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 guidance, all in two efficient sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects. However, it could improve by mentioning the return format or data structure, as no output schema is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No parameters needed,' which clarifies the tool's simplicity and prevents confusion, though it doesn't need to explain any parameters beyond this.

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 ('View account balance summary') and resource ('account'), listing the exact data points retrieved (daily budget remaining, total invested, realized and unrealized P&L). It distinguishes itself from siblings like portfolio.get or portfolio.risk by focusing exclusively on balance metrics without requiring parameters.

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 this tool ('Use this to check how much budget is left before placing new trades'), providing a clear context for usage. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for detailed portfolio analysis or trading actions), though it doesn't name specific alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for effective decision-making.

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