polymarket-trader-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 compensates for missing output schema by listing return values (profile stats, active positions, win rate, volume, PnL, recent activity). However, it omits operational traits like read-only safety, rate limits, caching behavior, or API cost.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first defines the tool, second lists return values, third provides usage context. Front-loaded with essential information; no redundant phrases.

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?

Adequately complete for a single-parameter analysis tool. Compensates for missing output schema by enumerating return fields. Mentions platform (Polymarket) and workflow integration (watchlist). Minor gap: could specify if this is a cached vs. real-time analysis or rate limit implications.

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 coverage is 100%, with the address parameter fully documented in the schema ('Trader's Ethereum wallet address (0x...)'). Description mentions 'by wallet address' which aligns with but does not extend beyond the schema definition. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the action (Analyze), resource (Polymarket trader), and input method (by wallet address). Distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_traders' or 'get_trader_positions' by specifying comprehensive profile analysis including stats, PnL, and win rate.

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?

Provides clear positive guidance: 'Use before adding a trader to your watchlist to assess their quality.' Establishes workflow context (pre-watchlist vetting). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., vs. 'score_trader'), but the workflow cue is strong.

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