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 mentions that the tool 'returns SL/TP suggestions, concentration warnings, and cut/hold/take-profit actions,' which gives some insight into outputs, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or how recommendations are generated. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves complex analysis.

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 in the first sentence and efficiently lists the return types in the second. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 complexity (analysis and recommendations) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or example outputs. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand full usage, though the purpose and parameters are clear.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the strategy influences 'SL/TP suggestions' and 'cut/hold/take-profit actions,' providing context beyond the schema's enum definitions. However, it does not detail how the strategy parameter specifically affects the analysis, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('analyze' and 'generate') and resources ('open positions'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like portfolio.get, portfolio.risk, and positions.list by focusing on optimization recommendations rather than basic retrieval or risk assessment. The mention of strategy-based analysis further clarifies its unique function.

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 implies usage when optimization is needed based on a risk strategy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio.risk or positions.set_exit_rules. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios from the purpose alone.

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