polymarket_market_detail

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that no authentication (user token, wallet signature, cookies) is required, clearly indicating a credential-free public endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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: the first states the core action, the second adds key behavioral context. No superfluous words; front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and authentication requirements. It could mention the return format (normalized market JSON) but remains largely complete given the low complexity.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% (the schema describes 'id' as 'Polymarket market id'), the description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('Polymarket market detail by id'), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_events (list events) or polymarket_markets (list markets). No ambiguity.

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 usage when credential-free access is needed, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as polymarket_clob_market or polymarket_market_liquidity. No direct guidance for selection among siblings.

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