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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does: it discloses the $0.01/call cost, frames output as information not a forecast, and names the enrichment fields returned. It stops short of describing resolution failure behavior or feed latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then prerequisites and cost. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the parenthetical example list runs slightly long.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back (events with relevance, source tier, corroboration, per-asset impacts). Inputs, pricing, and the information-not-forecast caveat are covered; the shape of the return payload could be more explicit.

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 limit, since, and market are fully documented in the schema, including the Gamma API resolution path. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that 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: resolves a market (by id, slug, or question text) to odds, then returns primary-source feed events bearing on the question. The listed return attributes (relevance, source tier, corroboration, per-asset impacts) make the tool's output scope unambiguous and distinguishable from generic feed siblings like events_since.

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 explicit when-to-use context: before trading or quoting a probability on Polymarket/Kalshi-style markets, or to detect a fresh primary event the market hasn't repriced. No when-not or named alternative sibling is given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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