list_subgraphs

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('List'), consistent with the name, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but adds only minimal 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, it could be enhanced by clarifying the relationship to sibling tools like get_subgraph_schema or query_subgraph, but current level is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately mentions 'all available' implying no filtering. No compensation required, so baseline 4 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 action (List), the resource (all available Polymarket subgraphs), and includes additional details (descriptions and key entities). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_subgraph_schema, which likely deals with schema details, and query_subgraph for executing queries.

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 usage for listing all subgraphs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_subgraph_schema. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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