Search Polymarket prediction markets by keyword to retrieve token IDs, prices, metrics, and resolution data; an empty query returns open markets.
Search Polymarket markets by text (Gamma public-search under the hood); empty query lists open markets. Returns token ids, prices, metrics, resolution info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "search_marketsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the empty-query behavior and what the tool returns (token ids, prices, metrics, resolution info). It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but those are minor for an annotated read-only search 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?
Two short sentences front-load the core behavior and return information with no repetition of schema or annotations. Every clause adds information.
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 simple read-only search tool with two defaulted parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the empty-query edge case, and the return content. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on how limit behaves, though its default is present in the schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning but only addresses query via 'by text' and the empty-query behavior. The limit parameter is not explained at all, leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Polymarket markets by text,' with the venue name distinguishing it from sibling tools like kalshi_search_markets. The additional 'empty query lists open markets' behavior further pins down the tool's purpose.
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?
The description implies when to use it—for text search of Polymarket markets, and for Kalshi there is a sibling with that name—but it never states when not to use it or names an alternative such as find_markets for cross-venue searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.