polymarket_sports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format as a top-level array with specific fields. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, completeness, or whether the list is static or dynamic. For a simple read-only catalogue, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains usage and return format. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns (list of objects with sport, image, resolution, ordering, tags, series) and how to use the output. It is missing a minor detail about whether the list is exhaustive or how frequently it updates, but for a metadata catalogue this is acceptable.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it is a 'sports metadata catalogue' and lists contained fields (tag ids, league/resolution links, series). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is the entry point and that tag_id should be fed into polymarket_markets/polymarket_events.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (as the entry point for sports markets) and provides a specific follow-up action ('feed tag_id into polymarket_markets/polymarket_events'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough.

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