polymarket_get_event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying that outcomes/prices/tokenIds are parsed, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no redundant information. Each sentence adds value—purpose, usage hint, and parameter guidance.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (child markets with parsed data), how to identify (id/slug), and when to use. It lacks mention of any limits or edge cases, but is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by stating 'Provide an id or a slug,' clarifying that either can be used as an identifier. However, it does not detail behavior when both are provided or format requirements.

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 retrieves event details with all child markets, including parsed outcomes/prices/tokenIds. It distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_get_market' by focusing on events with multiple markets.

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?

It mentions usefulness for multi-candidate/neg-risk events, which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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