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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the winning outcome is 'derived from final outcome prices, only when unambiguous — never invented,' and mentions resolution source, end date, condition id/slug. Also includes pricing and payment method, providing full behavioral context.

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?

Description is informative but somewhat verbose. However, key information is front-loaded and structured logically. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition (e.g., mentioning 'Polymarket resolution oracle via Gamma API' twice) could be trimmed.

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, description adequately explains return fields (closure status, winning outcome, resolution source, end date, condition id/slug). It covers inputs, pricing, and distinct use case. Could add details about error handling or response format, but sufficient for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description merely restates 'Input: market slug or condition id' without adding syntax, defaults, or usage examples beyond the schema. No additional semantic value.

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 Polymarket resolution status via Gamma API, including winning outcome and resolution source. It explicitly distinguishes from live odds, a sibling tool (polymarket_odds), by noting it returns whether a market is closed and which outcome won.

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 states the tool is 'distinct from live odds' and suitable for 'settlement, audit, research and event-forecasting agents,' implying when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the contrast with live odds provides context. It also specifies inputs (slug or condition id).

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