textokit_polymarket_markets

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 add genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the 0.002 USDC per-call cost paid via x402 on Base and the existence of a free sample. However, it omits pagination/filtering behavior, response shape, and failure modes for a 7-parameter tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with zero filler and the pricing constraint placed prominently. It is efficient, though the opening sentence's vague framing slightly undercuts the front-loading value.

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?

Cost and sample routing are covered, and the rich schema fills in parameter details, so the definition is minimally usable. But for a 7-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three resource modes, the description should at least explain the resource branch and pagination 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for any parameter, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

It names the resource (Polymarket markets and public data) but uses no specific verb, so an agent can't tell whether it fetches, searches, or streams. The description also fails to surface that the same tool serves positions and activity via the 'resource' parameter, which is only discoverable in the schema.

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 only guidance offered is a pointer to the free sample for trying it out; there is no statement of when to call this versus other data siblings like textokit_crypto_prices or textokit_x402_adoption. The constraint that positions/activity require a user wallet is left entirely to the schema.

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