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 the tool's behavior by stating what it returns (trader address, PnL, volume, win rate) and mentions the auto_watch feature's effect. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects beyond the watchlist addition.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences, each adding value: the first states the purpose, the second explains usage, and the third describes output and integration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output values, but could improve by mentioning error handling or pagination details (e.g., how 'pages' affects performance). The lack of output schema means the description should ideally detail return structure more explicitly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining trade-offs between period settings or how min_volume interacts with ranking. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('fetch') and resource ('top traders from the Polymarket leaderboard'), specifying ranking criteria (PnL, volume, ROI) and the goal ('find profitable traders worth copying'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like traders.analyze or traders.backtest by focusing on discovery rather than analysis or testing.

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 when to use this tool ('to find profitable traders worth copying') and mentions an alternative action ('use auto_watch to add them to your watchlist directly'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other discovery tools like markets.discover or wta.discover.

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