get_market_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, data ordering, or what constitutes an event. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and detail. It does not earn its place as it omits critical information.

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 no output schema and zero annotation coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters affect results, or any constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with three untyped parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%. The three parameters (action, market_token, limit) are not explained in the description or schema. The agent has no context on what values to provide or their purpose, severely hampering correct invocation.

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 'Get prediction market event history' clearly identifies the resource (event history) and the verb (get). It is distinct from other get_* tools like get_market_info or get_market_liquidity, though it could be more specific about the nature of events.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar get_* siblings, the description should indicate that this tool is for historical event data rather than current state or other market details.

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