get_polymarket_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a cost of $0.01 USDC via x402 and describes the return content (confidence, reasoning, knowledge holder, prices, metrics), which gives the agent a good sense of side effects and output. It does not mention rate limits or reversibility, but for a read-like signal retrieval that is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the cost note is appended clearly. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and return contents. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps (e.g., how to obtain a valid index) are not critical since omitting it defaults to the latest signal.

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 already describes the 'index' parameter fully ('Specific signal index number. Omit to get the latest signal.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for adequate param semantics.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'a single Polymarket predetermined outcome signal', and defines what that means (AI-detected markets with known outcomes). It distinguishes from the plural sibling 'get_polymarket_signals' by emphasizing 'single' and 'predetermined outcome', but does not explicitly name alternatives. Strong purpose but not maximal differentiation.

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 (when you want a single specific signal vs. a list) through the word 'single', but it does not state when to prefer this tool over get_polymarket_signals or get_polymarket_latest, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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