Retrieve past position movements from the SQLite audit history for Polymarket Up/Down markets; filter by kind, slug, or cursor to inspect recorded trade events.
Auditoría SQLite con cursor y filtros. No sincroniza ni opera. Eventos no son débitos adicionales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| after | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: 'No sincroniza ni opera' clarifies the tool performs no side effects, and 'Eventos no son débitos adicionales' guards against a likely misinterpretation of event data as financial debits. This is genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not provide.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core purpose, the non-behaviors, and the debit misinterpretation guardrail. The main idea is front-loaded and there is zero waste.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with all-optional parameters, an agent can invoke it safely with defaults (limit=100) based on this description. However, meaningful filtered use requires knowing parameter semantics (valid kind values, what slug refers to, which param is the cursor), and with no output schema the return shape is also undisclosed. Adequate for basic calls, incomplete for deliberate filtering.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining kind, slug, after, and limit. 'Con cursor y filtros' hints that some parameters paginate and some filter, but it never maps which parameter is the cursor, what kind/slug select on, or what values are valid. This under-compensates for a complete absence of schema-level documentation.
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 names a specific operation (auditoría/audit) over a concrete resource (SQLite) with explicit mechanics ('con cursor y filtros'). The negation 'No sincroniza ni opera' differentiates it from siblings like sync_orders and execute_trade. It would be a 5 with a clearer positive statement of what the audit produces, and the Spanish phrasing is slightly less accessible than an English description.
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?
The description gives only negative guidance: 'No sincroniza ni opera' implies the agent should not reach for this tool for sync or trading actions. It never explicitly states when to use it or names an alternative tool for those cases, leaving the routing logic to inference rather than direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.