markets.related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Only the purpose is stated, omitting any operational constraints or return structure.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and adds a use-case in the second. Every word is efficient with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains inputs and purpose but lacks information about the output format or pagination. With three parameters and no required fields, it could hint at what the response looks like.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds context about 'related' markets and use cases, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema since the schema already conveys parameter meanings clearly.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'Polymarket markets', and distinguishes the tool by specifying the two modes of relating (by condition_id or topic keyword). It also notes utility in discovering correlated markets, differentiating it from sibling tools like markets.search or markets.featured.

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 use when wanting related markets ('useful for discovering correlated markets...') but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives such as markets.search or markets.trending. The guidance is present but lacks exclusion criteria.

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