get_prediction_markets

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds value by revealing that the tool 'derives equity market signals from contract odds,' which is a behavioral trait beyond simple fetching. However, it could disclose potential rate limits or pagination 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?

Two focused sentences: first states the primary action and scope, second adds the derivation aspect. No redundant words. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description covers sources and purpose, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., what the 'derived equity signals' look like). With no output schema, the description should at least outline the response structure or key fields to ensure complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It only hints at the 'category' parameter through examples (Fed, elections) but does not explicitly map enum values or explain 'min_volume'. Key information about default values and parameter roles is missing.

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's verb 'Fetch', resource 'real prediction market probabilities', and specific scope including sources (Polymarket, Kalshi) and event types (macro events like Fed decisions, elections). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_polymarket_market (which targets specific markets) and search_prediction_markets (which searches broadly).

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 implies use for macro event probabilities but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from alternatives like get_macro_signals or get_fed_policy_signals, which could cause confusion. Given multiple siblings, explicit usage context is needed.

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