polymarket_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context beyond these: it states no authentication is needed, lists the returned fields in detail, and provides a concrete example. It does not disclose potential rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only catalogue tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-line summary, return format, example, auth note, and a cross-reference. It is moderately concise and every part adds information. The 'Also answers this: kalshi_markets' line is slightly extraneous but does not significantly bloat the description.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields and noting the top-level array shape. It also covers auth, provides an example, and mentions filtering options. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema already does that, making this reasonably complete for a list/filter tool.

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 100% coverage of all 15 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by summarizing the main filtering dimensions (activity, volume, liquidity, tag, slug) and by including a concrete example that ties several parameters together (limit, active, closed, order, ascending), helping the agent understand how to combine them.

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 the tool provides a market catalogue with current outcome prices and lists filtering/sorting options. It identifies the resource (Polymarket markets) and distinguishes from most siblings, though the note 'Also answers this: kalshi_markets' introduces ambiguity about its exact scope relative to that tool.

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 what the tool can do (filter/sort by activity, volume, liquidity, tag, slug) and includes an example query. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the phrase 'Also answers this: kalshi_markets' is vague and could confuse an agent about when to prefer this tool over the Kalshi-specific sibling.

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