Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-server-polymarket

mcp-server-polymarket

Get a Perps index price

get_perps_index
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the index price for an asset and the constituent prices and weights used to build it.

Instructions

The index price of an asset and the constituent prices and weights it is built from.

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": {
      "asset": "<asset>"
    },
    "name": "get_perps_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesBase asset, e.g. BTC or SP500.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the response composition (constituents and weights), which the annotations do not. It says nothing about freshness, latency, or behavior for an unknown asset, but for a simple read that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary return value and then qualifies it with the composition detail. Nothing is wasted, though it is a noun phrase rather than an actionable instruction.

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 tool is simple: one fully documented parameter and an output schema that carries the return-value contract. The description only really lacks routing guidance against sibling price tools, which is a modest omission given the tool's low complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with an example ('Base asset, e.g. BTC or SP500'). The description does not clarify whether the asset refers to a spot index or a perps index, which would have been useful beyond the schema's generic example.

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 ('index price of an asset') and reveals what the payload contains ('constituent prices and weights'), so its purpose is clear. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as get_perps_tickers or get_price_history, and it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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 exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list alone whether it wants the index price, the ticker price, or price history.

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