graph-polymarket-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_price_history

Fetch historical price data for a Polymarket outcome token, providing time-series points for charting and trend analysis.

Instructions

Get historical price data for a Polymarket outcome token. Returns time-series price points for charting and trend analysis.

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": {
      "tokenId": "<tokenId>"
    },
    "name": "get_price_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tokenId`	Yes	CLOB token ID
`fidelity`	No	Number of data points to return (1-500)
`interval`	No	Time interval: 1m, 5m, 1h, 6h, 1d, 1w, or max	1d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns time-series price points, but does not explain the response format, ordering, pagination, or any potential limitations (e.g., date range restrictions). This is adequate but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 a single, tightly focused sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is free of redundancy or irrelevant detail, exemplifying concise structure.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and no annotations. The description states the return type (time-series price points) but not its structure (e.g., array of {timestamp, price}), which is a meaningful gap given the lack of an output schema. It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical price data for a Polymarket outcome token'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like get_live_prices. It also specifies the intended use case (charting and trend analysis), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states 'for charting and trend analysis,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_live_prices for current prices') or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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