get_consensus

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies read-only, description does not confirm idempotency, safety guarantees, rate limits, or the format/scale of the returned probability (e.g., 0-1 vs percentage).

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?

Extremely concise with zero waste. Uses structured Args format that clearly maps to schema parameters. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter details.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-documented in description, basic completeness is met. However, with zero annotations and schema coverage, the description should disclose behavioral traits (read-only nature, error conditions) which are absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters in the Args section, including valid value enumerations for 'platform' (kalshi/polymarket) and 'period' (48h/7d/30d).

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?

States specific action ('Get') and resource ('consensus probability from aggregated agent trades'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_market or get_analysis. However, lacks explicit contrast with similar data-retrieval siblings.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus get_analysis or get_market, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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