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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $0.005 USDC per-call cost, cross-platform coverage, and mode-dependent outputs, but it omits payment/auth mechanics, rate limits, pagination, and explicit read-only 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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: purpose first, then the two modes, then cost. 'Cross-platform coverage' slightly repeats the platform list, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 four-parameter read-style tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, platforms, and cost adequately. It could still say more about return shape or data freshness, but the core calling information is present.

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 input schema already documents mode, limit, query, and timeframeDays. The description reinforces mode semantics by explaining that 'upcoming' returns closing-soon markets with odds and 'resolved' returns settled markets with outcomes, but it does not add meaning for the other parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Track prediction market events and resolutions' across named platforms. It also identifies two operating modes, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as prediction_market_aggregator, prediction_market_history, or prediction_market_odds.

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?

It gives clear guidance on choosing between 'upcoming' and 'resolved' modes, including what each returns. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling prediction-market tools, so usage versus alternatives is only implied.

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