polymarket-trader-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: runs a market quality check pre-execution, distinguishes preview mode (simulation) from live mode (real CLOB orders), and implicitly warns about financial risk in live mode. This covers the essential safety and operational characteristics needed for a trading tool.

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?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: (1) core action, (2) required/optional inputs, (3) pre-execution check, (4) execution modes. Information is front-loaded and logically sequenced from general operation to specific behavioral details. No redundancy or filler content.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers operational safety (preview vs live distinction, quality checks) and expected behavior (CLOB order placement). It lacks detail on error states or return values, but provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand the consequences.

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 maps parameters to their roles ('Specify condition_id, USDC amount, and optionally a limit price') but adds minimal semantic depth beyond the schema (e.g., it confirms USDC currency but schema already states 'Amount in USDC'). It successfully identifies the optional nature of price but doesn't elaborate on outcome semantics beyond the schema's enum definition.

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?

Specific verb (Buy) + specific resource (outcome shares) + specific platform (Polymarket market). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'sell' and differentiates from order management tools like 'batch_order' or 'place_stink_bid' by focusing on direct CLOB market buying.

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 explicit guidance on execution modes (preview vs live) which governs when to use simulation versus real trading. However, lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like 'batch_order' (for multi-order) or 'sell' (for closing positions), and does not specify prerequisites like wallet funding or market selection criteria.

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