analysis.opportunity

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

Annotations are absent, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It clearly states read-only, no trades, and returns a score with reasoning. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, auth needs, or side effects beyond being non-destructive. The behavioral traits are mostly clear.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines purpose and inputs; second sentence clarifies safety. Front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place.

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 the simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, inputs, output type, and safety. It is almost complete, but lacks detail on the score format/range. Minor gap, so 4.

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% for condition_id, already explaining it as a 'Polymarket market condition ID to analyze for trading opportunity'. The tool description adds no further semantics beyond restating that it analyzes the market. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Explicitly states it generates a BUY/SELL/HOLD recommendation for Polymarket markets, lists analyzed factors (price, spread, trend, liquidity), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like analysis.arbitrage or analysis.compare. The verb 'generate' and resource 'recommendation' are specific.

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 implies usage for trading recommendations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analysis.arbitrage or analysis.quality. No exclusions or context for when not to use it. The phrase 'Read-only analysis' provides safety context but lacks comparative guidance.

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