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 behaviors: it assesses risk across four specific dimensions, returns a risk score with warnings, and requires no parameters. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits.

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 specific dimensions and output details, all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (assessing multiple risk dimensions) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the four dimensions assessed and the output type (risk score with warnings). However, it could improve by detailing the output format or example warnings, as there is no output schema to 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No parameters needed,' which clarifies that no input is required beyond what might be inferred from the schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed given the empty schema.

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 ('assess portfolio risk') and resources ('across 4 dimensions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like portfolio.balance or portfolio.get. It explicitly lists the four risk dimensions assessed, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 context by specifying what the tool assesses (portfolio risk across dimensions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio.optimize or traders.analyze. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal usage scenarios.

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