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. It discloses key behaviors: it scans positions, updates P&L, and closes positions meeting criteria. However, it lacks details on execution frequency, error handling, or what 'closes' entails (e.g., market orders, confirmation). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, followed by secondary actions and a parameter note. Every sentence adds value: defining scope, actions, and parameter info, with zero redundant or vague language.

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?

For a tool with 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the what and how. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., returns closed positions, errors), side effects, or integration with other tools like config.safety_limits, leaving some context gaps.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description explicitly states 'No parameters needed,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('scan', 'updates', 'closes') and resources ('open positions'), and distinguishes it from siblings like positions.list (which lists) or positions.close (which closes specific positions). It explicitly defines what exit conditions trigger the scan.

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 stating it scans 'all open positions' for exit conditions, suggesting it's for automated monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like positions.close (manual closure) or positions.set_exit_rules (setting rules), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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