Get Polymarket Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It discloses a credit cost ('Costs 1 credit') and describes the return contents ('active positions, values, and P&L'), which are useful behavioral 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (what is returned and the credit cost). No fluff or redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it states the resource, the output, and cost. Minor gaps like return format or pagination are not critical for this low-complexity tool, but a bit more detail could make it fully complete.

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 sole parameter 'address' is fully documented in the schema with its format ('Ethereum wallet address (0x...)'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond referencing 'address,' so the schema bears the responsibility, resulting in a baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'Polymarket prediction market positions for address.' It further specifies the output ('active positions, values, and P&L'), making it distinct from sibling tools like octav_get_portfolio.

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 the tool is for Polymarket-specific positions but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is clear for the intended use case, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is given.

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