polymarket_list_markets

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the 'active' filter is 'best-effort' and under-documented, and notes the 'volume_num_min' parameter's naming nuance. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true).

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 starts with a clear summary sentence and lists arguments in a readable bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized for 13 parameters, though the 'Args:' section could be slightly more concise.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters), presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers essential use cases and quirks. It may lack format details for some parameters but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 explains most parameters including their purpose and examples (e.g., order sort fields, date bounds as ISO-8601). This compensates well, though some parameters like 'tag_id' are only described as 'numeric tag id' which is minimal.

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 'Browse and filter markets' and explains default behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'polymarket_search' or 'polymarket_trending_markets', so the purpose is clear but lacks distinction from alternatives.

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 by specifying defaults (active, open markets by 24h volume) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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