markets.featured

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the ranking criteria (liquidity) and category filtering, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is straightforward but lacks depth on invariants.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and key details (ranking by liquidity, optional category filter). Every sentence is essential and concise.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned (top markets by liquidity) and the optional category filter. It does not detail output fields or metadata, but for this context it is sufficient. Slightly more detail on the return format would improve completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, meaning the parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the ranking by liquidity and the active trading aspect, which clarifies the meaning of the returned data beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 lists top Polymarket markets ranked by liquidity, with an optional category filter. It includes specific categories and implies a ranking by liquidity, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like markets.trending or markets.discover, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it or suggest other tools for different needs (e.g., trending markets or search).

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