polymarket_get_market

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns 'full detail' and clarifies the id parameter's dual interpretation (numeric vs 0x as condition_id). This enhances transparency beyond 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 concise with one clear sentence followed by structured param explanations. Minor improvement could be formatting the args as a list, but it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 (covering return values) and annotations, the description adequately covers usage, parameter semantics, and the tool's scope. No critical gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter with examples and nuance (e.g., 'A "0x..." value is treated as a condition id'). This provides essential meaning missing from the 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 the tool 'Resolve[s] one market in full detail', specifying three alternative identifiers (id, slug, condition_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_list_markets which return 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?

The description explicitly says 'provide one' among the three parameters, implying mutual exclusivity. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose and parameter choices make it clear for a single-market lookup.

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