Get event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description's 'reads the live Polymarket API and changes nothing' largely restates readOnlyHint; the only added nuance is that data is fetched live rather than cached. Nothing about rate limits, auth, or failure modes is added.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the purpose plus the resource definition are front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully specified in the schema. For a one-param read tool with complete annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a URL-derived example. The description adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a Polymarket event') and then defines the resource ('the group of related markets sharing one topic'), which is genuinely useful domain framing. It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish get_event from get_market without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the single-market case to get_market, giving a real when-to-use alternative. It does not address other plausible alternatives in the sibling list (search_markets, get_markets_by_tag, list_markets), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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