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 what the tool returns ('Returns a grouped markdown table') and its scope ('comprehensive portfolio overview of all open copy-trading positions'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, specifying use cases, and providing alternatives. There is no wasted language, and the most critical information (the tool's purpose) is presented first.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. However, without an output schema, more detail about the markdown table structure (e.g., column names, data formats) would be helpful for complete understanding, though the description's specifics about included data partially compensate.

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 explicitly states 'No parameters,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema, confirming there are no hidden or optional inputs required for this operation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get a comprehensive portfolio overview') and resources ('all open copy-trading positions'), distinguishing it from siblings like portfolio.balance (budget-focused) and portfolio.risk (concentration metrics). It details what information is included (grouped by source trader, per-wallet subtotals, market details, P&L).

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 states when to use this tool ('as a daily status check, before sizing decisions via config.set, or to identify which source wallet is carrying the portfolio') and provides clear alternatives ('Call portfolio.balance for budget-focused numbers or portfolio.risk for concentration metrics'). This gives comprehensive guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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