get_subgraph_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the schema is 'full' and uses the word 'introspection', which hints at the return type and scope. However, it does not mention any potential large response, error behavior, or security context, leaving room for improvement.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 simple input (one enum parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance on return format and usage context relative to sibling tools. It is adequate but could be more helpful by stating that the result can be large or used to plan queries.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information. Notably, the schema parameter description lists only a subset of the enum values ('main, beefy_pnl, slimmed_pnl, activity, or orderbook') while the enum actually contains 11 values, which could confuse the agent. The description does not compensate for this inconsistency.

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'), the resource ('full GraphQL schema'), and the target ('Polymarket subgraph'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'query_subgraph' by specifying introspection rather than data querying.

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 schema discovery, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'query_subgraph' or 'list_subgraphs'. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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