Search prediction markets across all venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: free public search, no API key required, broad venue coverage, and details on return fields including referenceProbability, venueCount, spreadPoints, and outcomeName. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph but is information-dense and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, though a slight structural improvement (e.g., bullet points for return fields) could enhance readability.

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 has 7 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return fields, constraints (free, no API key), and distinguishes from siblings. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it focuses on the output. Thus, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs a 'Free public search over prediction-market events across ALL seven venues', naming each venue explicitly. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'discover_pm_markets' by noting the broader scope, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides usage guidance: it's for 'Research/data only', contrasts with 'discover_pm_markets', and directs the agent to use 'discover_pm_markets + pm_quote' for trading. This clearly states when not to use this tool and what alternatives exist.

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