polymarket_book

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds that no auth is needed and specifies the exact return shape (market, asset_id, bids, asks, tick_size, neg_risk, timestamp), going beyond the annotation-provided safety profile without contradicting it.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence. Return format, auth, and alternative are each given in short, structured lines, with no redundant wording or filler.

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 covers the purpose, return structure, auth requirements, and an alternative sibling. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the schema handles the parameter detail.

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 sole parameter (token_id) is fully documented in the input schema as 'CLOB token id (one entry of a market's clobTokenIds)', so the schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The description does not add additional parameter-specific information beyond restating that it is for one outcome token, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns the full order book (bids and asks with sizes) for one outcome token. It uses specific terms like 'bids', 'asks', and 'sizes', and scopes it to a single outcome token, distinguishing it from other Polymarket tools that return prices or midpoints.

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 explicitly mentions 'Auth: none needed' as a prerequisite and names 'kalshi_orderbook' as an alternative query it can answer, giving the agent a clear when-to-use signal. This provides direct guidance on when this tool is appropriate compared to a sibling.

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