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 discloses that the tool is a read-only operation ('View') and mentions it's a 'Pro feature', hinting at potential access restrictions. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 with the core purpose, followed by specific details and usage context in three efficient sentences. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details like response structure or error cases, which are important for a tool with no output schema. It meets minimum viability but could be more 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'address' is used to fetch positions for due diligence, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details. 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 ('View another trader's current open positions'), the resource ('on Polymarket by their wallet address'), and the scope ('Shows market name, outcome, size, and current price'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'positions.list' (which likely shows the user's own positions) and 'traders.analyze' (which might provide broader analysis).

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 ('Useful for due diligence before copy trading'), which helps differentiate it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'positions.list' for viewing one's own positions.

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