get_resolving

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses payment cost ($0.02), payment mechanism (x402), refund guarantee, private key requirement, and behavior without a key (returns 402 terms). This is exceptional transparency about the tool's operational behavior and prerequisites.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose and data returned, then covers filtering, payment, and auth in separate sentences. Each sentence adds value, but the density may require careful reading; still appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, yet the description covers what data is returned, parameter behavior, payment/refund policies, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's full context, including failure modes (402 without key) and live vs. price-term behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining 'withinHours' range (1-72), the default for 'includeNoise', and the meaning of 'mechanical short-interval markets'. This enriches the schema's basic descriptions, though 'minLiquidity' is only covered by schema.

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 retrieves Polymarket markets resolving within a specified time window, with specific data fields (odds, contested-vs-converged, liquidity, order-book microstructure). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pulse or get_digest, which likely serve different purposes.

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 clear conditions: mechanical short-interval markets excluded by default, includeNoise=true to include them, and live API requires PRIVATE_KEY with USDC on Base, otherwise returns 402 price terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives but gives enough contextual usage guidance for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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