scan_polymarket_odds_and_arbitrage

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live' implies a real-time external fetch but says nothing about rate limits, latency, authentication, pagination, whether results are truncated, or how the 'mispricing signals' are computed or what confidence they carry. It omits that the operation is read-only, though 'Get' weakly implies it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail rather than a virtue.

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?

The tool has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter context — and it covers neither. An agent would have to guess what the filters do and what the returned 'mispricing signals' look like.

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 and largely fails. It never mentions maxEvents, keywordFilter, or minVolume24hUsd; the phrase '24h USD volume' only obliquely hints at the minimum-volume filter, and nothing explains result-count capping or keyword matching behavior.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource set: live Polymarket prediction probabilities, 24h USD volume, liquidity, and multi-outcome mispricing signals. An agent can tell it is a market-scanning/analytics tool. It does not distinguish itself from the unrelated sibling tools, but their domains are far enough apart that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent under what conditions it should scan Polymarket versus doing something else, nor when the mispricing signal portion is relevant versus the raw odds portion.

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