polymarket_spread

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that no auth is needed and that the return is a spread object, but provides no further behavioral context such as error cases or data freshness. This offers modest value beyond annotations and does not contradict 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?

The description is short and the main purpose is front-loaded, but the sentence 'Also answers this: kalshi_orderbook' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place. It reads as an out-of-place note that confuses rather than clarifies.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the return shape and auth requirement. However, the ambiguous relationship to kalshi_orderbook and lack of detail about how the spread is computed or represented leave moderate gaps for an agent trying to select among similar prediction-market tools.

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 schema already documents token_id as 'CLOB token id' with 100% coverage, so the description has a low bar to meet. The phrase 'one outcome token' reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no new technical detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns the bid-ask spread for one outcome token, which is a specific and understandable operation. However, the trailing 'Also answers this: kalshi_orderbook' introduces ambiguity about the exact scope and relationship to an existing sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_price, polymarket_midpoint, or kalshi_orderbook. The cryptic 'Also answers this: kalshi_orderbook' is not an actionable usage guideline, and the only operational note is 'Auth: none needed.'

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