markets.price

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses it is a read operation and describes source (CLOB order book) and conditional behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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 that are concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention the return format or what fields (e.g., bid, ask, spread, position value) the response contains. This is a gap for completeness. Otherwise, it covers the main use cases adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning: explains the condition_id as Polymarket market condition ID and the show_positions parameter's effect. It also describes the interactive behavior when both parameters are used, which adds value beyond schema.

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 gets live bid/ask/spread prices from the CLOB order book for a specific market by condition_id, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like markets.watch_price, which also involve prices.

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: use condition_id for specific market, or omit with show_positions=true for all open positions. But it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other price-related tools (e.g., watch_price, trends) or 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.