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 the tool as a read-only operation ('View') and specifies the return data format ('Returns market name, entry price, current price, P&L, and exit rules for each position'), adding valuable context. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and filtering, and the second specifies the return data. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-organized.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and return format adequately. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like pagination or error scenarios, slightly limiting completeness for an agent's full understanding.

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, with the single parameter 'status' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'filtered by status (open, closed, or all)', which aligns with but does not significantly expand upon the schema's details. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 your own copy trading positions'), resource ('positions'), and scope ('filtered by status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'positions.check_exits' or 'positions.close' which focus on different operations. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for usage by specifying the filtering capability ('filtered by status (open, closed, or all)'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'portfolio.get' or 'traders.positions'. It implies usage based on the need to view positions with status filtering, without detailing exclusions or direct comparisons.

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