netintel_prediction_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload in detail (outcomes, prices as implied probability, volume, liquidity, dates, resolution source, status) plus a behavioral note that no API key is required. It stops short of covering failure behavior for unknown ids/slugs or the one-of constraint on the two inputs.

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 key identity (full detail, one market, id or slug) is front-loaded, followed by a field list that doubles as a stand-in for the absent output schema. The enumeration is long but each field earns its place given there is no output schema; the trailing 'No API key…' fragment is awkwardly truncated.

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 two-parameter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the source (Polymarket), the lookup keys, and the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get back. The only real omissions are the required-key constraint and behavior on a miss.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by indicating the lookup key is 'by id or slug', but it gives no format examples, no precedence rule when both are supplied, and no indication that at least one is required despite both being marked optional.

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 (fetch full detail) and resource (ONE Polymarket prediction market) and enumerates exactly what makes up that detail. The word 'ONE' implicitly separates it from the plural sibling netintel_prediction_markets, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Full detail for ONE ... market' — an agent can infer this is the single-record lookup versus a listing tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no routing to netintel_prediction_markets or netintel_market_snapshot, and no statement of whether id or slug is required (both parameters are optional in the schema).

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