blockrun_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about endpoints, parameters, and cost tiers, and mentions that most endpoints are GET. However, it omits details on authentication requirements, rate limits, and return format (no output schema exists). The description does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 extremely long and reads like full API documentation. While it is well-organized with categories (Tier 1, Tier 2, venues), it lacks conciseness. The key info (purpose and cost) is front-loaded, but the verbosity may hinder quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (many endpoints, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it covers available endpoints, parameters, cost tiers, and filtering options. However, it does not describe return values, error handling, or authentication, which would be expected for full completeness.

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 100% with brief descriptions for each parameter. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by listing all valid path values, explaining query parameter usage (e.g., filtering, pagination), and clarifying that 'params' is for GET and 'body' for POST. This greatly aids parameter understanding.

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 provides 'prediction market + derivatives data via Predexon aggregator'. It lists numerous specific endpoints and categories (e.g., 'markets', 'polymarket/events', 'kalshi/markets'), making the purpose highly specific and distinguishing it from sibling tools like blockrun_search or blockrun_price.

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 provides extensive usage guidance: it explains cost tiers (Tier 1 vs Tier 2), categorizes endpoints by venue and functionality, and specifies that query params go via 'params' (GET) while 'body' is for POST endpoints. It also mentions filtering options (e.g., '?venue=', '?status='). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings, though the context is clear.

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