list_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully bears the burden. It states 'List' (read-only) but omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or response structure. This is insufficient for a listing tool with potential large data volumes.

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 single sentence of acceptable length, but it lacks specificity. It could be more informative while remaining concise, e.g., by clarifying what 'events' are.

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 and minimal description, the agent lacks understanding of what the response contains (e.g., event IDs, names, nested markets). The 3 parameters are well-described in schema, but overall context is incomplete.

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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It mentions 'with child markets', which aligns with the 'with_markets' param, but doesn't enhance understanding of format or constraints.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Polymarket events', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_market' (a single market) and 'search_markets' (searching). However, it does not clarify that an event is a grouping of markets, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_markets' or 'top_markets'. The sibling list exists but the description offers no context for selection.

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