getPolymarketVerifiedOdds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – a 0.02 USDC payment on Base – but wastes the rest on 'CanaryGuard-sanitized' branding and does not describe freshness, rate limits, or data provenance.

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 a run-on marketing block with alarmist capitalization ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE'), repeated phrasing of the same return metrics, and an irrelevant usage clause. The useful payment detail is buried at the very end.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract; it does list implied probabilities, skew, and whale flow, and notes the price. But a vague 'category' input, no output shape, and contradictory auditing use-cases leave meaningful gaps for a paid, open-world data tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter ('category') exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no syntax, allowed values, or default for category, so the baseline of 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?

The core resource is identifiable – Polymarket CLOB implied probabilities, orderbook skew, and whale flow – which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, the leading 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing and the claim that it is for auditing smart contracts/wallets/DEX liquidity actively muddy what the tool does, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling getPolymarketOddsPulse.

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?

It does give a when-to-call clause, but that clause points to smart-contract auditing, wallet analysis, and DEX liquidity validation on Base/Solana – none of which relate to delivering Polymarket odds. This is guidance that would lead an agent to misselect the tool, and no alternative (e.g. getPolymarketOddsPulse) is named.

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