pmus_list_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a light burden. It adds that results include tag and series IDs, but doesn't describe filter behavior, data freshness, or any other runtime traits beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, the resource, and the key output fields efficiently.

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 an output schema and strong annotations present, the description covers the core purpose well. However, it leaves the meaning of the operational_only parameter unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a simple one-parameter 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?

There is one parameter, operational_only, with no schema description and 0% description coverage in the tool description. The property name provides a weak hint, but the description never explains what 'operational_only' controls or how it affects the returned sports/leagues.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sports/leagues supported by Polymarket US') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like pmus_list_events and pmus_list_markets by including 'tag and series ids'. This is clear and immediately actionable.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving supported sports/leagues, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is obvious enough among the sibling list tools.

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