check_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the probability comes from a precomputed cache on a cron cadence and may be up to ~2 hours stale, and it explicitly says the tool does not classify whether news is dramatized. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know. It could add error behavior for unmatched news, but the key operational traits are transparent.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the core function, and the second adds necessary limitations and the routing alternative. Every sentence contributes value, and the key behavior is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return values (YES probability and marketId), the data freshness caveat, and the alternative for live prices. It does not specify the exact response structure or behavior when no relevant market is found, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that 'text' is a piece of news text used as the input for market mapping. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema constraints of minLength and maxLength. Still, it could be more explicit about input shape expectations, but for a single free-text parameter it is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a piece of news text to the relevant Polymarket market and return its objective YES probability.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_market by stating that the returned probability is an objective market anchor backed by news text, not a live price.

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 gives explicit context: this tool maps news to a market and returns a cached probability. It names the alternative get_market for live pricing before trading, which is a clear conditional routing. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where check_news should not be used beyond the live-price case.

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