polymarket-mcp

by fzlzjerry

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

polymarket_get_user_value

Read-only

Retrieve the total current USDC value of a given wallet's Polymarket positions.

Instructions

Total current value (USDC) of a wallet's Polymarket positions.

Args: wallet: EVM address (0x...).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "polymarket_get_user_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wallet`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	Yes
`value`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the value is in USDC and aggregates positions, but does not discuss edge cases (e.g., empty wallet, network errors). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences for the tool and one for the parameter. No wasted words or redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple value retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (per context signals), the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned (total current value in USDC). It does not explain how to interpret the output, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no description in input schema), so the description must compensate for the single 'wallet' parameter. It specifies 'EVM address (0x...)' which clarifies format and prefix. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema's title and type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Total current value (USDC) of a wallet's Polymarket positions.' This uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource (value of positions), clearly differentiating it from siblings like polymarket_get_user_positions (which returns individual positions) or polymarket_get_user_activity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_get_user_positions or polymarket_get_market. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Given the number of sibling tools, explicit differentiation would be beneficial.

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

Deploy Server