botindex_polymarket_micro_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the timeframe and format but does not explain key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list structure, data fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information without any waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details (timeframe, format, price) in a compact form. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, output format) that would help the agent use it correctly. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more fully, but it only partially does so, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional information is required, and the description does not contradict the schema.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves Polymarket micro-markets ending in the next 2 hours in 'Up or Down format' with a price point of '$0.01'. It specifies the resource (Polymarket micro-markets), timeframe (next 2 hours), format (Up or Down), and price, making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'botindex_polymarket_fomc' or 'botindex_polymarket_whale_trades', which limits the score to 4.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, nor does it refer to sibling tools for comparison. Without such information, the agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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