polymarket_trades

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the response shape (top-level array with listed fields), states authentication is not required, and clarifies the tool is for public data. It does not contradict the read-only, open-world, or idempotent hints, and usefully supplements them with return-format and auth details.

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 highly concise: each sentence delivers distinct information (purpose, return shape, auth, cross-reference). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only trade tape with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, that it is public, and that no auth is needed. However, it does not mention default time ranges, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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 the schema already describes all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by saying filtering can be by 'market (condition id) or user', which mirrors the schema's 'market' and 'user' descriptions. No meaningful additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the structured 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 description clearly states the tool returns recent trade fills ('Public trade tape') with optional filtering by market or user, and explicitly lists the return fields. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'get', and the note 'Also answers this: kalshi_trades' adds slight ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 implies when to use it (when you need recent trade fills) but never explicitly states when to use it over alternatives. The 'Also answers this: kalshi_trades' note hints at covering kalshi_trades-style queries, but the usage context is not clearly defined.

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