List Polymarket liquidity-reward markets (ranked)

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses its credential-free nature, output fields, and ranking methodology. It does not cover potential rate limits or caching behavior, but for a list operation, the transparency is good.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with value proposition, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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, the description fully specifies output fields (daily pool, max scoring spread, etc.) and ranking logic, covering all necessary context for a list tool with two parameters.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful context, particularly for measureCompetition, explaining its effect on ranking and API calls.

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 lists markets paying maker rewards ranked by reward per dollar of liquidity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_markets by focusing on liquidity-reward markets.

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 explicitly frames itself as 'THE differentiator' and explains the ranking rationale, implying use for maximizing reward efficiency. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides clear context.

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