polymarket_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by returning market data with prices, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It also lacks information about rate limits, authentication, or any side effects.

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, using three lines: purpose, return format, and example. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose. The return format example is helpful. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the example into the first sentence.

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 complexity of 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It only covers a few filter options and provides one example. It lacks details on pagination, default sorting, parameter combinations, and the full list of return fields. The tool is complex, but the description is minimal.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'activity, volume, liquidity, tag or slug', which maps to some parameters (e.g., slug, tag_id, volume_num_min, liquidity_num_min, order). However, it does not explain the majority of the 15 parameters, such as limit, offset, active, closed, ascending, end_date_min/max, condition_ids, clob_token_ids, or archived. The example is vague and does not clarify parameter usage.

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 'market catalogue with current outcome prices' and mentions filtering/sorting options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_market (singular) by indicating a list of markets. However, it lacks a strong action verb, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes an example ('Most-traded active markets') but does not mention when not to use it or compare with other polymarket tools like polymarket_search or polymarket_events. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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