polymarket: searchPolyMarketEvents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing the tool as safe and idempotent. The description adds 'Returns compacted results', which hints at a lighter response format but does not detail specifics like pagination or field truncation. With strong annotation coverage, the added behavior context is moderate.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core action ('Search Polymarket events by keyword') and adds a single additional detail about return format. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, one required, no output schema), the description covers the essential search function. However, it lacks details on result format, pagination behavior, and how 'compacted results' differ from other polymarket event tools. For a basic search tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully informative.

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 low (33%), with only the 'q' parameter described in the schema. The tool description does not explain the 'page' or 'events_status' parameters beyond what the enum values suggest. Since the burden falls on the description to compensate for the schema gap, the lack of parameter context is a significant deficiency.

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 'Search Polymarket events by keyword', specifying the verb 'search', the resource 'Polymarket events', and the method 'by keyword'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPolyMarketEvents (which likely returns all events without keyword filtering) and getPolyMarketEvent (which targets a specific event).

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 usage when keyword search is needed by saying 'Search...by keyword', and mentions 'Returns compacted results' hinting at a lightweight option. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like getPolyMarketEvents or getPolyMarketEventsByTag, nor provide when-not-to-use scenarios. More explicit guidelines would improve selection accuracy.

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