polymarket_midpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states that it returns a midpoint. It doesn't mention data freshness, rate limits, authentication, or whether the operation is read-only. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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 very short (one sentence plus return format) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It is efficient, though it could add more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify the return type (e.g., number), error conditions, or how this differs from related Polymarket tools like polymarket_price. The context given 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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'for one outcome token' without explaining the token_id parameter's format, source, or relationship to Polymarket data. An agent would need additional context to correctly supply the token_id.

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 returns the midpoint (between best bid and best ask) for one outcome token. This conveys the function's purpose, though it could more explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like polymarket_price or polymarket_book.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polymarket_price or polymarket_book. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent decide.

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