polymarket_homepage_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the data source ('public web app', 'credential-free Gamma JSON'), the normalization behavior, and the differences among feeds. It does not disclose return row structure or pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the disclosed traits go well beyond a simple listing.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement, followed by source/behavior context and then feed enum details. The full enum list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is informative rather than fluff. It earns its length without being overly verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description itself should explain what the returned 'normalized rows' contain. It does not describe row fields or return structure, and pagination is only implied by the `cursor` parameter. The source and feed behavior are well covered, but the unspecified return shape is a notable gap for an agent invoking this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the `feed` enum values, especially `breaking` and `mentions`, which the schema merely labels 'Homepage feed'. It provides no extra detail for `limit` and `cursor`, but the added feed semantics justify a score above 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 opens with 'List Polymarket homepage feed rows,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the operation. It further distinguishes itself from the many polymarket sibling tools by stating it returns 'normalized rows for Polymarket homepage feeds' sourced from the 'public web app' and 'credential-free Gamma JSON,' and by naming the feed-specific behaviors.

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 gives clear context about what the tool returns and even explains feed variations ('breaking returns high-movement market rows and mentions returns open event search matches'). However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as polymarket_events or polymarket_search, nor does it state exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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