mcp-server-polymarket

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List event creators

list_event_creators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve creators credited on user-proposed Polymarket events, with optional filters by name, handle, or creator ID and cursor-based pagination for browsing results.

Instructions

Creators credited on user-proposed events.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_event_creators"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`limit`	No	Rows per page.
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous page. Empty starts at the top.
`handle`	No
`creator_id`	No	One creator by id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`has_more`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds only the scope 'credited on user-proposed events' and says nothing about result shape, filtering, or pagination beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single fragment is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It reads as a title restatement with one qualifier.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-filter paginated list endpoint, the definition gives no filtering guidance and does not explain how name, handle, and creator_id interact. Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return values, but the description is too thin to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention any of the five parameters, including the undocumented name and handle filters; only limit, cursor, and creator_id have schema descriptions. With 60% coverage, the description does little to compensate for the remaining ambiguity.

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 the resource and adds a scoping detail ('user-proposed events') beyond the title, so the agent knows these are event creators rather than events themselves. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with siblings like list_events, but the noun phrase is 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 mention of alternatives such as list_events, and no prerequisites or filtering conditions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server