get_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload shape (metadata plus constituent markets with prices, volumes, token IDs), which implies a read-only, rich-return operation, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for an invalid event_id.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, and the Args block is short. The parameter line mildly restates the schema name, but the format hint earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is technically optional, yet the description adds a useful summary of the payload. With a single fully-described required parameter and no complex nested structures, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: event_id is characterized as the unique Gamma identifier formatted as a numeric string, adding source-system and format meaning beyond the bare 'Event Id' title in the schema.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific Polymarket event') and enumerates what the response contains (metadata, constituent markets, prices, volumes, outcome token identifiers). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_events or get_gamma_market, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'specific event' framing signals lookup-by-identifier rather than discovery, so an agent can infer it is the counterpart to search_events. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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