get_market_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly state if it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The transparency is adequate but could be improved by confirming read-only nature.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds useful context. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Without an output schema, the description could elaborate on what the response contains (e.g., fields like timestamp, moderator, action). It only says 'when and how' but is vague. For a tool with simple parameters, it is minimally adequate but not 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter formats or provide examples. 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's purpose: retrieving moderator revisions/updates for Polymarket markets. It specifies the action ('get') and the resource ('moderator revisions'), and adds context about showing when and how moderators intervened, differentiating it from siblings like get_market_resolution which likely returns current resolution.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools. Users are left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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