polymarket_clob_markets

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

With no annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior and the output structure (condition_id, question, tokens, etc.), making the tool's behavior clear. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but those are implied by the API context.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for return format. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler words.

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 simple tool (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, pagination, and return fields. An agent can invoke and paginate correctly.

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 single parameter 'next_cursor' is not described in the schema, but the description's mention of 'cursor-paginated' and the output including next_cursor clarifies its role in pagination, adding meaning beyond 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 it is a 'CLOB market catalogue' with specific attributes (condition ids, token pairs, tick sizes) and differentiates itself as 'the trading-plane view of the same markets' from sibling tools like polymarket_markets.

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 context about cursor-pagination and the trading-plane view, implying when to use it vs. other views, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list specific alternatives.

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