Retrieve saved stop-loss orders with their status, configuration, retry counts, linked order, and last error to monitor and manage automated trading protections on Polymarket.
SL persistidos: estado, configuración, intentos, orden vinculada y último error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| active_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context that the data is persisted and includes internal fields like attempts and last error, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or how active_only affects results.
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 a single compact phrase with no filler, front-loading the subject and then listing the data fields. It is efficient, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity and is not structured as a full sentence.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides the main returned fields and benefits from annotations covering the safety profile. However, it omits parameter semantics and any notes on pagination or filtering behavior, leaving important invocation details implied by parameter names and defaults.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (limit, offset, active_only). The parameter names are conventional and somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, such as the meaning of active_only or the default behaviors of limit and offset.
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 identifies the resource (persisted stop losses) and enumerates the returned data fields: status, configuration, attempts, linked order, and last error. The action 'list' is not explicitly stated, but it is clear from the tool name and the read-only annotations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_trade_history or poll_updates, but the resource focus is clear.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_stop_loss, cancel_stop_loss, or get_trade_history. The description gives no scenario, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.