PolyPulse: Polymarket odds & movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important traits: it is free, returns only 3 results, and applies a $10k/24h volume filter. It omits rate limits, refresh cadence, and whether the paid path requires auth beyond the x402 mention, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 padding, with the core capability and its constraint front-loaded before the paid-tier pointer. Every clause carries 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, one-param tool, the description covers scope, filtering, result count, cost model, and the escalation path. Only minor gaps remain: the shape of each returned market and the default window value.

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 single enum parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does by naming both allowed values ('1h or 24h') and tying them to the ranking window, though it does not state which value is the default.

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?

States a specific resource (open Polymarket markets), a precise ranking criterion (biggest implied-probability move), the result cap (3), the window options, and the liquidity filter. An agent can tell this apart from polymarket_top_preview, which ranks 'top' markets rather than movers.

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 frames itself as a free preview and routes to polypulse_paid_endpoints for the full ranked list, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer polymarket_top_preview over this movers tool, leaving one sibling distinction to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it is free, returns only the top 3 by 24h volume, and the richer dataset is gated behind a paid x402 call. It also names the return signals (live odds, 1h/24h change, volume). It stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the free/limited scope and return fields come first, and the paid upsell is a brief trailing pointer. Nothing could be cut without losing routing 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: result count, ranking basis, returned fields, and the paid alternative. Only the differentiation from polymarket_movers_preview 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'q' param is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing concrete example values ('bitcoin', 'election') that clarify what kind of keyword filters work, pushing it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'top 3 open Polymarket markets by 24h volume', plus the returned fields. It names the paid sibling polypulse_paid_endpoints but never distinguishes itself from the other sibling polymarket_movers_preview, so an agent must infer the split.

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 frames itself as a free preview and routes to polypulse_paid_endpoints for the full up-to-50 list, giving a clear use/alternative condition. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over polymarket_movers_preview.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses that payment is required via HTTP 402 and PAYMENT-SIGNATURE with USDC on Base, which is useful. It does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether listing is free, or what happens if no payment signature is provided.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the payment mechanism. Every part earns its place.

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 tool is a simple lister with no inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and payment protocol. It could be more explicit about when to use it versus the preview tools and whether any setup is needed, but it is largely 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist.

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 explicitly states it lists a specific resource (PolyPulse's paid x402 HTTP endpoints) and names the covered endpoint categories. It clearly distinguishes itself from the preview siblings, which are free endpoints.

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?

By specifying 'paid x402 HTTP endpoints' and giving the payment flow, it implies use for actual data access requiring payment, while the sibling tools are previews. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over the previews or any preconditions like needing a funded USDC wallet.

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