search_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying API and lists return fields (token ids, prices, metrics, resolution info), but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a search tool this is likely safe, but the absence of explicit safety cues keeps it at a middling score.

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 filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each clause adds value: the search action, the underlying API, the empty-query behavior, and the return fields. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 output schema exists, return values are adequately covered. The description explains the essential behavior (text search and empty-query listing) and the underlying API. It does not clarify the effect of 'limit' or pagination/sorting, but these are minor for a simple search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'query' parameter (text search and empty-query behavior) but provides no information about 'limit' beyond its existence in the schema. Partial compensation is insufficient for a fully undocumented parameter set.

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 specific action: 'Search Polymarket markets by text' with a distinct resource (Polymarket markets) and mentions the underlying API (Gamma public-search). It differentiates from siblings by naming the platform, distinguishing it from kalshi_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 description implies usage for text-based searching and explicitly notes that an empty query lists open markets, which is a key behavior for selecting this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_market or kalshi_search_markets, though the platform name inherently routes the agent.

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