Polymarket Agent Mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior by listing what information it returns, but doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value by specifying the scope of analysis but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what information will be returned. However, it doesn't describe the format or structure of the returned data, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The purpose and usage context are clearly covered.

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%, with the single parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which specifies it's an Ethereum wallet address with a regex pattern). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Analyze a Polymarket trader') and resource ('by wallet address'), with explicit output details ('profile stats, active positions, win rate, volume, PnL, and recent trade activity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'traders.discover' or 'traders.score' by focusing on individual trader analysis rather than discovery or scoring.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use before adding a trader to your watchlist to assess their quality.' This clearly indicates the intended context and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'watchlist.add' or 'traders.score' by specifying a prerequisite evaluation step.

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