botindex_polymarket_fomc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Live' data and 'FREE' access, which adds some behavioral context about real-time updates and cost. However, it lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or output format, making it insufficient for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. Every sentence ('Polymarket FOMC tracker.' and 'Live Fed/FOMC/interest rate markets with probabilities and liquidity. FREE.') adds value without waste. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain what the tool returns and its behavioral traits. It mentions 'probabilities and liquidity' but doesn't specify the format, scope, or limitations of the data. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to interpret results.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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's purpose: tracking FOMC markets with probabilities and liquidity. It specifies the resource (Polymarket FOMC tracker) and key data elements (probabilities, liquidity). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_polymarket_micro_markets' or 'botindex_polymarket_whale_trades', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'FREE' but doesn't explain if this is a distinguishing feature or prerequisite. There's no mention of context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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