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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it presents third-party public quotes with as-of times and explicitly states 'no bets, no affiliate links,' clarifying it is read-only and non-commercial. Error behavior is not described, but with zero parameters this is acceptable.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a page reference. It front-loads the board name and then lists specific data elements, with each phrase adding value and no wasted words.

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 and no parameters, the description fully specifies the data included (venues, horizons, median, spread, implied date, resolution basis, formula) and the source page. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource (AGI prediction-market consensus) and enumerates venues (Polymarket, Kalshi, Manifold, Metaculus), horizons (2027-2040), and metrics (median, spread, implied 50% date, resolution basis). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_claim_ledger or search_site without 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?

The description gives rich context about what data is available, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and content, which is adequate but not directly instructive.

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