wta.discover

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It explains the tool is a read-only discovery (finding matches and returning data), and mentions no destructive actions or side effects. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but such details are less critical for a non-mutating tool.

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 composed of three front-loaded sentences: purpose, output, and action link. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the time frame ('today's'), the input parameter meaning, and the return format. No critical information appears missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description barely adds beyond the schema: it mentions 'stink bid opportunity' but does not significantly enhance the semantic meaning already provided by the schema's description.

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 it finds today's WTA tennis match markets on Polymarket where the favorite is at a discount, specifying the output (current vs fair price, discount percentage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like markets.discover and traders.discover by being specialized for WTA tennis.

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 advises using place_stink_bid to act on opportunities and labels itself as a 'Pro feature,' implying advanced use. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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