get_market_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the output includes YES/NO prices, implied probability, volume, and metadata, but lacks disclosure on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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 two main sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure, but it does mention key fields. It provides adequate context for a simple tool with two parameters, though missing guidance on error conditions or platform validation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds valuable context: market_id format examples (Kalshi ticker, Polymarket condition_id) and platform values ('polymarket' or 'kalshi'). This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 gets odds and pricing for a specific market, with verb and resource. It references sibling tools for obtaining market_id, distinguishing its purpose. However, 'detailed' is vague and could be more specific.

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 advises using market_id from sibling tools, implying when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like find_arbitrage or get_category_markets.

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