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 that watched wallets are 'monitored for new trades when the monitor is running,' adding useful behavioral context about monitoring dependencies. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the address is already watched/removed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and monitoring behavior, but could improve by addressing potential errors or the output format. Without an output schema, some gaps remain in understanding the return values.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or edge cases. 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 ('Add or remove'), the resource ('Ethereum wallet address'), and the target ('copy trading watchlist'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'watchlist.list' and 'watchlist.rebalance' by focusing on modification rather than listing or rebalancing operations.

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 to 'Use discover_traders first to find good wallets to watch,' which gives context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'watchlist.list' for checking current watched wallets.

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