Get latest prediction-market whale trades

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

Annotations already mark this read-only; the description adds that no API key is required, that Polymarket rows are wallet-attributed while Kalshi rows are anonymized, and that a print is informational, not a recommendation. These details go well beyond annotations and clarify data provenance and interpretation. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: core function and fields, venue attribution, informational disclaimer, and access requirement. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the data sources (venues), content (fields), ordering (newest first), attribution, and access requirements. It leaves no critical usage gaps.

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?

The single 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema (1-50, default 10) with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'newest first' and the $1k+ threshold but does not add any extra meaning to the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 states 'Free public tape of the latest large prediction-market trades' and enumerates the exact fields returned (side, USD value, price, market question, event). It uniquely identifies this as the whale-trade feed among siblings like pm_data_events and pm_data_overview, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: a public, no-key tape of large trades sorted newest-first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance but still gives enough context for basic selection.

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