polymarket_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: returns a top-level array, no auth required, and lists output fields. While it doesn't discuss pagination or the meaning of 'resolution', it goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, return format, and auth. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by essential details. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter catalogue tool, the description covers purpose, output structure, auth, and downstream usage. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further context, even without an output schema.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage) and the description cannot add parameter-level detail. The description compensates by explaining the returned fields, which helps an agent understand what to expect. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools.

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 this is a sports metadata catalogue providing tag ids, league/resolution links, and series, positioning it as the entry point for sports markets. It explicitly names the downstream tools (polymarket_markets/polymarket_events) and differentiates its role from those siblings.

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 concrete usage guidance: feed the returned tag_id into polymarket_markets/polymarket_events. This establishes a clear workflow and when to use this tool relative to alternatives, with no ambiguity.

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