polymarket-trader-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it specifies that the tool mutates state by closing positions and updating P&L, and lists the three specific trigger conditions it evaluates. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or atomicity.

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 consists of three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action (scanning for exit conditions), follows with side effects (updates P&L, closes positions), and ends with parameter information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 performs a complex batch mutation (scanning and closing) and lacks an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., a summary of closed positions, updated balances, or execution reports). The current description covers the operational logic but leaves the return value undocumented.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the rubric establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately confirms this with 'No parameters needed', providing sufficient clarity without redundancy.

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 scans open positions for specific exit conditions (market resolution, stop-loss/take-profit, trader exiting) and performs closing actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `close_position` (which likely handles manual closes), leaving the distinction operational rather than explicit.

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 description implies this is a batch automation tool ('Scan all'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `close_position` for manual closures or `get_positions` for monitoring. The phrase 'No parameters needed' provides some usage context but does not constitute full usage guidelines.

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