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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses sort order (newest settlement first), the meaning and scale of resolutionOutcome (0-100 points), the resolvedAt-vs-closedAt distinction and the resolvedAtVerified flag, and the side effect that meta.totalResolved becomes null when minVolume is set. Also notes no API key is required.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the archive's scope and ordering before drilling into field semantics. The resolvedAt/resolvedAtVerified sentence is information-packed rather than wasteful, though the volume of detail approaches crowding.

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 an output schema present, return format is already covered, yet the description still sketches row structure and field semantics. Combined with the annotation-backed safety profile and full parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the year/month slice relationship and, critically, the non-obvious interaction where setting minVolume nulls meta.totalResolved — a behavior not documented in any parameter description.

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 and scope: a free public archive of definitively resolved prediction-market events across all venues, ordered newest settlement first. An agent can distinguish it from non-resolved listing siblings like pm_data_events or pm_data_expiring by the word 'resolved', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives practical usage cues ('Pass year (and optionally month) for one calendar slice', minVolume keeps substantial markets), but never states when to choose this over pm_data_events, pm_data_expiring, or pm_data_event, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied through parameter behavior rather than explicit routing.

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