Retrieve Chainlink TWAP 30/60s reference data, market age, and price variation since start for any Polymarket slug.
Reglas y referencias Chainlink TWAP 30/60s, antigüedad y variación desde inicio cuando disponible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by naming the data points returned and noting they are provided only when available, which is useful but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is a cryptic fragment rather than a clear statement, and it does not front-load an actionable purpose. Brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, an undocumented required slug parameter, and many closely related sibling tools, the description does not provide enough information to call the tool correctly. An agent cannot determine what to pass or what to expect in return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter, slug, with no description; schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention slug or clarify what values it accepts, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase listing data elements (Chainlink TWAP 30/60s rules, age, variation since start) rather than stating what the tool does. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like get_market_snapshot or get_price_history, and 'when available' adds ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No mention of when to use this tool or which alternatives to choose. The description gives no context regarding preferred scenarios or sibling routing, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.