Retrieve a Polymarket prediction market's details by entering its URL, event slug, or market slug. Provides live odds and key market information for connecting news to predictions.
Look up one market by its polymarket.com URL, event slug, or market slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug_or_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'look up' and does not disclose the return shape, behavior when no market matches, or any error cases. It conveys a read operation but little beyond what the name already suggests.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information about what the tool does and how to call it.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, this is adequate for invocation, but the absence of an output schema and any note on not-found or resolution behavior leaves some context missing. The agent knows what to pass but not what to expect back beyond the implied market object.
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 schema provides no description for slug_or_url (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining the parameter accepts a URL, event slug, or market slug. It adds real meaning without providing examples or validation details.
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 action ('look up') on a specific resource ('one market') and enumerates three accepted identifier forms (URL, event slug, market slug). This distinguishes it from the sibling search_markets and trending_markets tools, which operate over collections rather than a single market.
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 implied usage is clear: use this tool when you already have a Polymarket URL or slug and need that single market. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer the sibling tools or what conditions make search_markets or trending_markets the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.