Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
graph-polymarket-mcp

graph-polymarket-mcp

by phon3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

search_polymarket_events

Search Polymarket events by keyword to retrieve sub-markets and live prices for sports matches, elections, and more.

Instructions

Search Polymarket events (sports matches, elections, etc.) and get their sub-markets + live prices using keyword search. Best for finding sports match markets like 'Spain France'.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_polymarket_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of events (1-100)
queryYesKeyword search query (e.g. 'France England' or 'US Election')
activeNoFilter: only active events

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the search behavior and return content (sub-markets + live prices), making the tool's effects transparent. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core function and output, the second gives a concrete use case. Front-loaded and free of any filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's main purpose, expected output, and provides a use-case example. The schema fully documents parameters. No output schema exists, but the description indicates return content. For a simple search tool, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a descriptive explanation. The description adds only a minor example for the query parameter, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Search Polymarket events' and specifies output ('sub-markets + live prices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_markets and list_polymarket_events by focusing on events and providing an example use case.

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 explicitly says 'Best for finding sports match markets' and gives an example query, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools