markets.search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields but does not describe pagination, sorting, rate limits, or behavior for empty queries. For a straightforward search tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides actionable next steps. Every sentence 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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to use the result. However, it omits details about result limits (beyond the limit parameter) and whether pagination is needed. Still, it is complete enough for most use cases.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the query parameter is simply mentioned). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches Polymarket markets by keyword query, specifying the return fields (question, price, volume, condition_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markets.featured or markets.trending, which are curated lists rather than keyword-based search.

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 the returned condition_id with other tools (buy, get_price, analyze_opportunity), but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like markets.discover or markets.events. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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