polymarket_series_list

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and a concrete return shape with field names. This tells the agent exactly what to expect from the call, which annotations don't cover.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for the concept, one for the return format, and one for authentication. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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 read-only list tool with thorough schema documentation and clear annotations, this description is complete. It explains the return array structure, auth requirements, and the tool's position in the hierarchy, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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%, so all six parameters are well documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Series catalogue' that lists series, and explicitly defines series in the context of the Gamma hierarchy (series → events → markets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_events or polymarket_markets.

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?

It gives clear context that this lists series at the top of the hierarchy, making it obvious when to use it versus lower-level tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like polymarket_series, but the hierarchy description implies the usage boundary.

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