Get a quick Polymarket quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: prices are 0-1 with midpoint≈probability, buyPrice vs sellPrice meaning, and that any value the book can't provide returns null.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling contrast before the arg/return detail, and each section earns its place. Slightly long because the Args and Returns blocks largely mirror the schema and output schema, which is mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the definition still provides them along with value semantics and the null-on-missing rule. For a low-complexity quote tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the 'preferred' note on token_id, the outcome default, and the response_format enum. The description restates these with minor added framing (token_id=preferred, outcome defaults to first), landing at the baseline rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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+resource ('get a lightweight live quote for one market outcome') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (midpoint, best buy/sell, spread, last trade). It distinguishes itself from polymarket_get_orderbook by scope, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Faster than polymarket_get_orderbook when you just want what's this worth right now,' and the reverse routing 'For full depth, use polymarket_get_orderbook.' When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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