polymarket_market_liquidity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and it is not a trading endpoint. However, it does not describe behavior when token ids are unavailable, rate limits, idempotency, or other side effects. The phrase 'when token ids are available' implies conditional behavior but lacks full disclosure.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, data sources, and authentication requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds detail without redundancy.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, data sources (Gamma, CLOB), and auth requirements. However, it lacks details on the output format or structure, which would aid agent usage. The sibling list includes many similar tools, so additional context on when to choose this tool would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter 'id', which is well-documented as 'Polymarket market id'. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves Polymarket market liquidity. It distinguishes itself from trading endpoints by noting it is not a trading endpoint and does not require authentication. However, among sibling tools like polymarket_market_detail and polymarket_clob_market, it does not explicitly differentiate its unique purpose beyond 'liquidity snapshot'.

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 provides clear context that this endpoint is for public, non-authenticated data access and is not for trading. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus other similar Polymarket tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.

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