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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 per call via x402 payment on Base mainnet) and the data returned (probabilities, volume, liquidity, resolution status). It does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or authorization details beyond payment, but the behavioral traits are largely transparent for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 moderately concise with three sentences, but the first two sentences are largely redundant, both stating the tool provides live odds and probabilities. This repetition wastes space and could be merged or removed for better conciseness.

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 simple input (one string parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (outcomes with probability, volume, liquidity, resolution status) and the cost. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward data retrieval tool, it covers the essential context fairly well.

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% for the single parameter 'market', so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('2654605' or 'will-it-rain-tomorrow') but does not elaborate on formatting or behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool as providing live prediction market odds and implied probabilities from Polymarket, specifying the input (market id or slug) and output (outcome probabilities, volume, liquidity, resolution status). It distinctly states the action and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_resolution which likely handles market resolution.

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 the tool is 'for event-forecasting, hedging and research agents,' which gives a general usage context but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like polymarket_resolution. It lacks exclusions or alternatives, so usage is implied but not well-defined.

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