search_prediction_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a paid cost of $0.02 USDC and indicates that results include live probability pricing and liquidity volume. However, it does not clarify pagination, response shape, rate limits, or whether results are sorted, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 compact fragments with zero waste, and the core search purpose is front-loaded. The price note is placed separately and does not interrupt the primary explanation.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the domain, data freshness, and cost. Because there is no output schema, it does helpfully mention that results include live probability outcome pricing and liquidity volume, though it still leaves response structure and result ordering unspecified.

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 100%, so both the query keyword and limit parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning such as query syntax, limit behavior, or search matching rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching active prediction markets on Polymarket. It adds domain detail by naming live probability outcome pricing and liquidity volume. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_prediction_arbitrage and get_whale_macro_signals, but the search framing is distinct enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 use case is implied by 'Searches active prediction markets' and the required keyword query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling arbitrage or whale-signal tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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