DepthFeed

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns the latest order-book depth and requires a paid plan, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences (14 words) with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a key constraint succinctly.

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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and schema documenting the parameter, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the required input, and a crucial prerequisite. Minor improvement could be noting the return format.

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 100% schema coverage, the description of the ticker parameter ('Kalshi market ticker from kalshi_search_markets') is already in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves the latest yes/no order-book depth for a Kalshi market by ticker. The verb 'get' is implicit, and the resource is well-defined. It differentiates from siblings like kalshi_get_snapshots and limitless_* tools.

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 mentions 'Requires a paid plan' and implies the ticker comes from kalshi_search_markets, offering some guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/ when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, relying on implied context.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), it discloses the historical nature and the plan limitation, adding valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and key constraint, with 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?

While it covers purpose and constraints, it lacks details on the response format (e.g., fields in snapshots) and pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides. Missing output schema increases the need for such details.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add more. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it provides historical yes/no depth snapshots for a Kalshi market by ticker, distinguishing it from current order book tools like kalshi_get_orderbook.

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?

It mentions the requirement of a paid plan and that history is gated by the plan window, providing essential usage constraints. However, it could explicitly compare to alternatives like kalshi_get_orderbook for live data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it lists markets with full depth, is exclusive to DepthFeed, and requires payment. This provides useful detail without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical access constraint. 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?

The combination of description, schema, and annotations provides thorough context: purpose, access requirements, pagination with cursor, and parameter details. No output schema exists, but the description covers what the tool returns (list of markets with depth). Slight improvement would be mentioning default pagination behavior.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., coin parameter breaks down access tiers). The tool description itself does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists Kalshi crypto markets with full yes/no depth and identifies it as DepthFeed-exclusive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like limitless_search_markets or polymarket_search_markets.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool requires a paid plan and that keyless/Free returns a 402 upsell. The schema also notes that keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only. This provides clear context on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond exclusivity.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds behavioral context: it requires a paid plan and specifies the ordering of depth data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences pack all essential information: purpose, ordering, input, and prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns (L2 depth with ordering), how to specify the market (slug), and a critical prerequisite (paid plan).

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 coverage is 100% with the slug parameter well-documented. The description reiterates the slug's purpose but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves the latest L2 depth (order book) for a Limitless market, specifying ordering (bids desc, asks asc) and input type (slug). It distinguishes from siblings like limitless_get_snapshots and other platforms' order books.

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 provides key usage guidance: it requires a paid plan and the slug comes from limitless_search_markets. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the sibling tools imply alternatives for snapshots and other data.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds critical behavioral context: a paid plan is required and history is gated by plan window, which discloses access limitations beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose concisely, second adds essential constraint. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain pagination behavior (cursor, limit) or return format. Given the complexity, some additional context about handling pagination and the response shape would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the input parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'by slug' and echoing plan window clamping, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns historical L2 depth snapshots (time series) for a specific market by slug, distinguishing it from sibling tools like limitless_get_orderbook which likely returns current data. The verb 'get' and resource 'snapshots' are specific.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (historical vs current), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The paid plan requirement is noted but not as a decision criterion.

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

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds value by specifying 'currently-open', 'DepthFeed-exclusive', and the paid plan constraint. These are behavioral details beyond the structured annotations, aiding agent understanding.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Critical information (exclusivity, plan requirement) is included efficiently.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the tool's scope and constraints. It lacks detail about the response structure or pagination behavior, but given the high schema coverage and annotations, it is mostly adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (coin enum with plan info, type, limit, cursor).

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?

Description clearly states 'List currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets', specifying verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting 'DepthFeed-exclusive' and 'Requires a paid plan'. This differentiates it from other search or feed tools.

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?

Description provides some context (paid plan requirement, open markets exclusivity) but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like kalshi_search_markets or limitless_get_orderbook. The usage is implied but not directly addressed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and external data sourcing. The description adds the mutual exclusivity constraint and plan limitation, but doesn't reveal other behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if both ids provided or if not found).

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?

Two sentences, zero redundant words. The first sentence states the core action and parameters, the second enforces the mutual exclusivity rule. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and a non-trivial input constraint. Slightly incomplete for not mentioning error handling or return format, but acceptable for a simple fetch operation.

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 100%, but description adds critical semantics: the mutual exclusivity of market_id and slug, and the plan-dependent restriction on coin. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'Polymarket market', and the two ways to identify it (by id or by slug). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs to provide exactly one of market_id or slug, which is a crucial usage rule. The coin parameter's plan restrictions are noted. However, there's no direct comparison to sibling tools or mention of when not to use.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that history depth is plan-gated and that include_orderbook controls full ladder vs. top-of-book, providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with two additional notes, containing no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors (plan-gating, interval usage). It lacks explicit return structure details but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds interpretative context (e.g., 'Use interval to downsample' and plan-gating), exceeding the baseline of 3 expected for high coverage.

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 states 'Historical order-book snapshots (time series) for one Polymarket market' with a specific verb (get) and resource (snapshots), and explicitly identifies the platform (Polymarket), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_snapshots and limitless_get_snapshots.

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 provides usage hints like using interval for downsampling and include_orderbook for full ladder, and notes plan-gated history depth. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, auth needs, or data freshness, but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Extremely concise, front-loaded, and no superfluous information.

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 list tool with no output schema but with 7 parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains output usage but could mention pagination details or cross-platform differentiation.

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 100%, so the schema adequately documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists Polymarket up/down crypto prediction markets for a coin, specifies returned fields (id, slug, window, status, timing), and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_get_market.

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?

Explicitly guides to use returned id/slug with polymarket_get_market or polymarket_get_snapshots, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Adds context beyond annotations: 'top-of-book snapshot' and 'one-shot overview'. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description complements well.

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?

Single sentence with all key information front-loaded. No unnecessary 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?

Does not describe return format or data fields (e.g., best bid/ask). For a tool with no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Description confirms 'No arguments.' Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Clearly states 'Cross-venue top-of-book snapshot for all assets across Polymarket, Kalshi, and Binance'. Distinct from venue-specific siblings like kalshi_get_orderbook.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives beyond stating its broad scope. Implies it is for a quick overview but does not exclude other tools.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation and open world assumption. The description adds context about what specific information is shown (plan, rate limits, history window, coin access) and highlights the distinction between keyless demo and API key usage, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and then provides details. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers all key aspects the tool reports. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output format or behavior for edge cases (e.g., if no session exists), but overall it is sufficient for correct usage.

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 no parameters (100% schema coverage trivially), the description fully explains what the tool returns. It adds meaning by detailing the output components (plan, rate limits, history window, coin access) and the conditional reflect keyless vs API key, which is essential semantic information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'current session's plan, rate limits, history window, and coin access'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools which are all about market data (orderbooks, snapshots, markets).

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 implies when to use (when you need session/account info) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context hints that it's for account details, but guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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