run_scraper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose critical scraper-specific behaviors: whether this writes to a database (destructive), how long 'fresh' takes to fetch, rate limits, or failure modes if the external platform is down. 'Fetch' implies a network call but lacks operational specifics.

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 appropriately compact with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter schema and existence of an output schema (covering return values), the description adequately covers inputs. However, for a tool involving external API scraping, the absence of behavioral annotations or safety disclosures (read-only vs. write) leaves a significant gap in operational context.

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 the 'source' parameter in the Args section, explicitly listing the valid enum values ('kalshi', 'polymarket', 'arbitrage') that the schema fails to constrain or describe.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch fresh market data') and clearly identifies the resource (platform scraper). The term 'fresh' effectively distinguishes this from sibling 'get_' tools which likely return cached data, establishing its unique role in the toolset.

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?

While 'fresh' implies real-time fetching versus cached alternatives, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like 'get_market' or 'list_markets'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., API keys) or rate limiting concerns inherent to scrapers.

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