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 behavioral traits: that this is a mutation tool ('Set'), that it triggers automated closure via 'check_exits', and that it's a 'Pro feature' (implying potential access restrictions). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens if both stop_loss and take_profit are omitted.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core functionality, second explains the behavioral consequence, third provides prerequisite guidance. No wasted words, and the most critical information appears 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose, behavioral consequence, and prerequisite, but lacks information about error responses, success confirmation, rate limits, or what happens when price levels are reached. Given the complexity of financial position management, more completeness would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'trade_id' comes from 'get_positions', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Set stop-loss and/or take-profit price levels'), identifies the target resource ('on an open position'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the related 'check_exits' tool for automated closure. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when to use this tool ('on an open position') and references 'get_positions' as a prerequisite for finding trade IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'positions.close' for manual closure.

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