chainvectorPredictionsMarkets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns live markets and lists the data fields, and points to downstream tools. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the key downstream relationship, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (market ids, series, strikes, close times) and explains the tool's place in the workflow. It stops short of explicitly stating the response is a list of markets or specifying any default behavior, but is otherwise complete.

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%: both 'venue' and 'series' have descriptions with examples. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, only referencing output fields such as strikes and close times. This matches the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('discovery') and resource ('prediction-market'), and clearly lists the output fields (venue market ids, series, strikes, close times). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that the market_id values feed the stability/edge/quotes tools, establishing a unique role.

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 when to use the tool: to discover live Polymarket/Kalshi markets before using downstream tools. It provides clear context ('market_id values feed the stability/edge/quotes tools') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative discovery tools. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a 4.

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