resolution_criteria

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the returned information's scope and the accepted identifier formats for each venue. This sufficiently informs an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 compact but information-dense, front-loading urgency and purpose before diving into parameter details. The long sentence with parentheticals is slightly dense but every clause earns its place and no unnecessary words appear.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what information will be returned, how to identify the market on each venue, and is backed by annotations covering safety. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, and it does. It explicitly defines 'venue' as either 'polymarket' or 'kalshi' and explains what 'market_id' should be for each: slug, Gamma id, or CLOB token id for Polymarket; ticker for Kalshi.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the full resolution contract for a market, and specifies what that contract contains (what resolves YES, who resolves it, from which sources). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic market lookup tools like get_market or search_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 opening phrase 'READ BEFORE TRUSTING A PRICE' strongly signals when to use the tool, and the description explains how to adapt the input for Polymarket versus Kalshi. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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