get_polymarket_bet_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the analysis components (odds, implied probability, profit, vig, value assessment), giving agents a clear idea of expected outputs. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, data freshness, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists the key components. It is front-loaded with 'Full bet analysis' and is not verbose. However, it lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) which could improve readability and parsing.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool returns. It covers the essential analysis aspects. While it does not detail the return format or error handling, it is sufficient for a well-defined tool with strong schema coverage and sibling context.

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% with both 'slug' and 'betSize' documented. The description reinforces that betSize defaults to 100, matching the schema default. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool provides 'Full bet analysis' including specific components: current odds, implied probability, potential profit on a $100 bet, vig estimate, and value assessment. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_polymarket_events, get_polymarket_market, get_polymarket_price, etc., which address other aspects of Polymarket markets.

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 a user has a market slug and wants to evaluate a bet, listing the analysis outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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