Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-server-polymarket

mcp-server-polymarket

List combo activity

list_combo_activity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Polymarket wallet's Combo lifecycle and redemption activity, newest first, with pagination and optional condition filters.

Instructions

A wallet's Combo lifecycle and redemptions, newest first.

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": {
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "list_combo_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesPolymarket wallet (proxy) address.
limitNoRows per page.
cursorNonext_cursor from the previous page. Empty starts at the top.
condition_idsNoUp to 20 condition ids.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
countNo
itemsNo
has_moreNo
next_cursorNo

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that results are ordered newest-first, but says nothing about pagination behavior or access requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the key scope and ordering appear immediately. It is perhaps terser than ideal given the tool's filtering options, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters need no explanation. However, for a paginated, filterable activity tool the description gives no hint about cursor paging or how condition_ids narrows results, leaving useful context unstated.

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 user, limit, cursor, and condition_ids are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about those parameters, so the 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?

Names a specific resource – a wallet's Combo lifecycle and redemptions – and specifies ordering ('newest first'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near siblings like list_combo_positions or list_activity, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given; the agent must infer that this is for inspecting a wallet's Combo activity rather than its Combo positions. Nothing routes the agent between this and the sibling combo/activity tools.

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