polymarket_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, lowering the burden. The description adds the exact return format, an example query, and notes that no auth is needed. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the response shape and example usage.

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 well-structured with separate sections for definition, return format, example, and auth. It avoids redundant wording and front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a full return structure and an example request, which compensates for the missing structured output. All 14 parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds practical usage context, making the tool adequately specified.

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 covers all 14 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), providing the baseline. The description adds meaningful context via an example showing how to combine limit, active, closed, order, and ascending, which clarifies typical usage patterns beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 defines the tool as an 'Event catalogue' that groups related markets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_markets or polymarket_event. It specifies the return structure with nested markets and provides a concrete example, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to list events with nested markets) and includes a usage example (most-traded active events). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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