get_prediction_market_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It correctly indicates that data is from live orderbook data and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or potential side effects. While adequate, it lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 very concise: three sentences that sequentially cover purpose with return values, constraint on outcome, and sourcing of market_id. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 6 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (fields). It does not cover error scenarios or rate limits, but for a quote tool with moderate complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for market_id (source from get_prediction_event_detail) and implies that parameters like side and depth affect the quote. However, it does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool purpose: getting a quote for a prediction market outcome from live orderbook data. It specifies the return values (best bid, best ask, mid price, spread, implied probability) and constraints (outcome must be 'yes' or 'no'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_price, which may return only a simple price.

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 provides guidance on outcome constraint and sourcing market_id from another tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_odds_event_orderbook, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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