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

mcp-server-polymarket

by tukorama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Check a Perps invite code

check_perps_invite_code
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates a Polymarket Perps invite code and optionally checks whether a given address can use it.

Instructions

Whether a Perps invite code is valid, optionally for a given address.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "check_perps_invite_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
addressNoWould this address be able to use it?

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the marginal fact that the check can be scoped to a specific address. It does not say what 'valid' means (unexpired? unused? within quota?), nor what happens on an unknown code, which is the main behavioral ambiguity left.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence fragment with zero filler, and the core concept (validity of a Perps invite code) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses a point for under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, read-only tool and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The safety profile is fully handled by annotations. What is missing is a definition of 'valid' and the invalid-code response path, which for a validation tool is the one piece of information an agent would actually want.

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 50%: the address parameter carries its own description ('Would this address be able to use it?'), while code is undocumented in the schema but self-evident from the tool name. The description's 'optionally for a given address' reinforces the address semantics but adds nothing about the required code argument or its format.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource (Perps invite code) and the specific check performed (validity), with an optional address scoping. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb-led statement, but an agent can still tell exactly what the tool returns. No sibling in the list performs code validation, so differentiation is implicit but effectively unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool or condition under which to skip this one. The only usage hint is the word 'optionally', which tells the agent the address argument is not required but says nothing about when supplying it matters.

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