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's core behavior (historical simulation, hypothetical P&L calculation), mentions it's a 'pro feature' (implying potential access restrictions), and clarifies this is for validation before adding to watchlist. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what specific metrics are returned.

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 structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: first defines the tool's function, second provides a concrete use case, third gives implementation guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes 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 simulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose, usage, and behavioral characteristics. It covers the 'why' and 'when' effectively. The main gap is the lack of information about return values (what metrics are included in the P&L calculation), but given this is a simulation tool with clear parameters, the description is quite complete.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about how these parameters fit into the simulation (copy_budget represents 'simulated $ amount per trade'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('simulate copying', 'calculate hypothetical P&L') and resources ('trader's historical trades', 'wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like traders.analyze or traders.score by focusing specifically on historical performance simulation rather than current analysis 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 validate their performance') and includes a specific use case ('shows what you would have earned if you had copy-traded this wallet'). It also mentions this is a 'pro feature', which provides additional context about access requirements.

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