polymarket_event

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and an explicit return shape, which are useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple read operation the provided information is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact return list. It front-loads the core action, includes only essential details (return fields and auth), and contains no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned (including a representative field list), authentication requirements, and the data source. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity of the tool, the information is largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id,' and the schema description already explains it is a Gamma event id from polymarket_events, required, and part of the URL path. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'by Gamma id,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'One event by Gamma id, with all its markets,' clearly identifying the resource (an event) and its scope (including markets). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch,' but the noun-phrase form is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling polymarket_events (plural). The return field list further clarifies what is produced.

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 implies usage—fetch a single event with its markets by supplying a Gamma id—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like polymarket_events or polymarket_market. The schema description adds a hint that the id comes from polymarket_events, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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