get_polymarket_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the monetary cost ($0.03 USDC via x402), a critical behavioral trait, and mentions the polling mechanism and batch limit. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only nature, and the description adds value beyond the tool name by flagging cost and usage patterns.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose and limit, polling mechanism, and cost. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers the essential aspects for a read-only getter: limit, polling, filtering, and cost. No output schema exists, so return format is not expected. It does not discuss alternatives, but the description is self-sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it given the batch and polling context.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptive text (coverage 100%). The description repeats the polling and confidence details without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the description offers no additional parameter-level insight.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('batch of Polymarket predetermined outcome signals'), and a clear limit (up to 20). It distinguishes from sibling get_polymarket_signal by being a batch operation, and the term 'predetermined outcome signals' clarifies the data type. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: for batch retrieval, for polling via the 'since' parameter, and for confidence filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_polymarket_latest or get_polymarket_signal), so it offers clear context but lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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