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 successfully discloses the 10-order limit and partial execution behavior ('Returns per-order results with success/failure status'), but lacks critical execution semantics like atomicity guarantees, rate limiting, or whether failed orders halt subsequent processing.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence lists parameters which is somewhat redundant given 100% schema coverage, but the return value disclosure in the third sentence is valuable given the absence of an output schema. Minimal waste.

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?

For a financial mutation tool with nested parameters, the description adequately covers the batch constraint and return structure (compensating for no output schema). However, it omits execution safety details—such as rollback behavior, idempotency, or balance prerequisites—that are important for a trading tool with no annotations.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists order fields ('condition_id, amount, optional price, and side') but adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., doesn't explain USDC denomination, hex format requirements, or position opening/closing semantics already in the schema).

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 'Execute multiple buy/sell orders in a single call (max 10 orders)', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope limit. It effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tools 'buy' and 'sell' (which handle single orders) by emphasizing the batch/multiple aspect.

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?

While the phrase 'in a single call' hints at efficiency benefits, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over individual buy/sell calls, or prerequisites like sufficient balance requirements. Usage is implied but not stated with explicit when/when-not guidance.

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