buy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that buys execute at best available prices and explains the fok/fak semantics including partial fills. However, it leaves out failure cases, fees, and what happens when the order cannot fill, so transparency is partial.

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 short and front-loads the primary action in the first sentence. The order-type explanation is compact and relevant, though the formatting could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 financial mutation tool with no annotations and an almost entirely undescribed input schema, the description is not complete enough. Nothing is said about account prerequisites, valid outcome values, or how a partial fill affects the resulting position, even though an output schema is 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 explains order_type and amount_usd, but none of the required fields slug_or_id, outcome, or account are clarified; for example, valid outcome values are not given. An agent cannot reliably know the expected string format for these core parameters.

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: buying shares in a Polymarket outcome. It signals a market-style buy by mentioning 'best available prices,' but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling place_limit_order or describe the difference between these order types.

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 execution behavior (spending amount_usd at best available prices, fok/fak options) implies immediate market-order usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as place_limit_order, and no mention of prerequisites like account initialization.

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