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 key behavioral traits: it returns match data with price comparisons and discount percentages, and it's designed for identifying stink bid opportunities. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what constitutes a 'favorite' (e.g., based on odds or rankings). For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure level.

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 that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, detailing the return value, and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the phrase 'Pro feature' is somewhat vague and could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, covering the essential context. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of match data). The sibling tools provide good differentiation, enhancing completeness.

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 fully documents the 'discount_pct' parameter with its description, type, range, and default. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description.

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 ('Find', 'Returns') and resources ('WTA tennis match markets on Polymarket', 'matches with current price vs fair price and discount percentage'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on WTA tennis markets with discount opportunities, unlike generic market discovery tools like 'markets.discover' or 'markets.events'.

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: for finding discounted favorite opportunities in WTA tennis markets. It names an alternative tool ('place_stink_bid') for acting on these opportunities and indicates this is a 'Pro feature,' suggesting it's for advanced users. This clearly differentiates it from other analysis or market tools in the sibling list.

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