get_disputed_markets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or any side effects. The description merely defines the resource without adding operational context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey purpose and context without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on the output format or any example usage. It is sufficient for a simple retrieval but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage for the sole parameter 'first' is 100% (it includes a numeric description). The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Polymarket markets that were disputed during the UMA oracle resolution process'). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings that also retrieve market data but target different aspects.

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 explains what disputes are ('high-signal events') implying a use case for monitoring contentious outcomes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_resolution or search_markets.

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