search_prediction_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 explains the read-only nature (search) and states what is returned: 'current odds (YES/NO prices), volume, and direct links.' However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or limitations (e.g., rate limits, pagination), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a bulleted args section. It includes useful examples but is slightly verbose with extra lines. The front-loading of the main action is effective.

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 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, return format, and provides context via examples. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty results) or platform-specific behaviors, but overall 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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query (with examples), platform (with default and options), and limit (with default and max). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema structure.

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's function: 'Search prediction markets across Polymarket and Kalshi by keyword.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (prediction markets), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_trending_markets by focusing on keyword-based retrieval.

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 provides examples of search queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_category_markets or get_trending_markets. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which scenarios are better suited for sibling tools.

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