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 describes the tool's action (removing underperformers) and mentions it's a 'Pro feature', hinting at potential access restrictions. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., irreversible removal), rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides context and feature level, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with performance thresholds) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the what and why but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation prompts, error responses) and output format, which are critical for safe use.

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 (min_score, min_win_rate, dry_run) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'threshold' in general terms but does not provide additional syntax or usage context for the parameters.

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 ('analyze' and 'remove') and resources ('all traders on your watchlist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like watchlist.add or watchlist.list. It specifies the criteria for removal (conviction score or win rate below threshold) and the goal (keep watchlist focused on high-quality traders).

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 maintain a focused watchlist by removing underperformers based on performance metrics. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but it implies usage for periodic cleanup rather than one-off operations.

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