get_active_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation or if any side effects occur. The description only lists output fields, missing necessary behavioral context like data freshness or authentication requirements.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and key outputs, and the second adds detail. No wasted words 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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, reducing the burden on the description. It adequately explains what the tool returns (active calls with specific fields). It could mention potential limitations like pagination or data freshness, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. It adds value by describing the output content, compensating for the absent parameter documentation.

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 retrieves active Polymarket trade calls and enumerates specific fields (EV, Kelly-sized position, oracle reasoning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_brief or get_signal, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for getting active calls, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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