mcp-server-polymarket

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get a public profile

get_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches a Polymarket user's public profile by wallet address, including name, pseudonym, join date, taker tier, and trading volume.

Instructions

A user's public profile: name, pseudonym, join date, taker tier and volume. For their positions and PnL use get_user_overview and list_positions.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bio`	No
`name`	No
`wallet`	No
`verified`	No
`pseudonym`	No
`created_at`	No
`taker_tier`	No
`x_username`	No
`weighted_volume`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description isn't obligated to restate it. The description adds the field inventory (useful framing) but nothing about lookup failure on an unknown address, rate limits, or privacy scope beyond the word 'public'; with an output schema present, the field list is partly redundant.

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?

Two tight sentences, field list first then the sibling redirect, with no filler. The sentence break mid-list ('For their') is slightly awkward but doesn't cost comprehension.

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?

One required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema that carries the return structure, so the description only needs resource scope and routing – both present. A note on behavior for a nonexistent or non-EVM address is the only real omission.

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%: the single address parameter has a title, a regex pattern, and 'Wallet address.' The description adds no format, checksum, or casing guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact resource (a user's public profile) and enumerates the fields it returns – name, pseudonym, join date, taker tier, volume – which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and doesn't state the addressing key, but an agent can still tell this apart from the data-heavy siblings.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away for adjacent needs: positions and PnL go to get_user_overview and list_positions. That is clear context for when to use the alternatives, though it doesn't spell out a positive when-to-use condition beyond the implied 'you want profile metadata'.

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

Deploy Server