chainvectorPredictionsQuotes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses cadence, scope (one market), and the YES top-of-book focus, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or describe the response format/limitations, leaving gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key characteristics. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with one required parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains what data is returned (recent YES top-of-book samples) but lacks detail on exact output fields. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap, but the core purpose is well covered.

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% and the descriptions for limit, venue, and market_id are clear. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail (e.g., how limit maps to time range), so it stays at baseline.

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 explicitly states it provides prediction-market quote history with specific details (recent YES top-of-book samples, ~10s cadence, one market). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chainvectorPredictionsTrades or chainvectorPredictionsMarkets.

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 phrase 'Reconstructs how the crowd repriced an outcome' provides clear context for when to use this tool—analyzing historical price movement for a single market. It doesn't explicitly cite alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.

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