polymarket_clob_markets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that. It discloses cursor-paginated behavior, the return structure, and that no authentication is needed, which are not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the baseline and gives the agent practical behavioral expectations.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a useful return format and auth note. The structure is generally clean, but the unclear 'Also answers this: kalshi_markets.' line adds confusion and could be considered extraneous, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does comprehensively by listing the exact fields and structure. It also covers pagination and authentication, making it sufficiently complete for a simple one-parameter read-only catalogue tool. The only gap is a lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but this does not severely hamper invocation.

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 already provides a thorough description of next_cursor, including special values ('' for first page, 'LTE=' for end), covering 100% of the parameter. The description only reinforces the cursor-paginated nature without adding new parameter-specific details. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 identifies the tool as a CLOB market catalogue with specific content (condition ids, token pairs, tick sizes) and pagination. It distinguishes itself as 'the trading-plane view of the same markets,' which implies a sibling tool but does not explicitly name it. The phrase 'Also answers this: kalshi_markets' is cryptic and could confuse rather than clarify the core purpose.

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 implied usage context through 'trading-plane view of the same markets' and the cross-reference to kalshi_markets, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no clear exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned. The reference to kalshi_markets is ambiguous and does not offer actionable selection criteria.

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