netintel_prediction_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does useful work by disclosing the return payload (question, outcomes, implied-probability prices, 24h/total volume, liquidity, resolution) and the live Polymarket source. However, it omits freshness/pagination behavior, rate limits, and whether a keyword search still returns volume-ranked results.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition and mode options, then the return shape, with no filler sentences. The trailing ellipsis suggests the description is truncated mid-idea, which is a minor structural blemish.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates return fields so an agent knows what it gets back. But it leaves all three input parameters undocumented and gives no behavioral constraints, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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% across three params (limit, query, status), so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'search by keyword' glosses 'query' and 'top ... by volume' hints at a bounded list, but 'limit' and 'status' are never mentioned or explained. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Live prediction-market odds from Polymarket') and names two concrete modes: list top active markets by volume or search by keyword. This distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not clarify its relationship to the closely-named sibling netintel_prediction_market (singular).

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?

It implies two usage modes ('list the top active markets by volume, or search by keyword'), which gives some selection logic, but it never states when to prefer this over the singular netintel_prediction_market sibling or what conditions favor one mode. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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