waiaas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying USDC.e (Polygon bridged USDC) and CTF (Conditional Tokens Framework) tokens, indicating it queries specific contract states. However, it omits read-only nature confirmation, auth requirements, or rate limiting despite the mutation-sensitive 'waiaas_pm' namespace.

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?

Single 11-word sentence with zero waste. Action verb front-loaded ('Get'), domain specified ('Polymarket'), and dual return types clearly articulated ('USDC.e balance and CTF token positions'). Every word earns its place.

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 1-parameter read operation without output schema, the description adequately specifies what data is retrieved (specific token types). Could improve by noting the return structure or that it returns both fungible balances and NFT-like CTF positions, but sufficient for tool selection.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'wallet_id' parameter ('Wallet ID. Auto-resolved for single-wallet sessions.'). Description mentions 'for a wallet' which aligns with the parameter but adds no semantic depth beyond the schema's auto-resolution explanation. Baseline 3 appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resources 'Polymarket USDC.e balance and CTF token positions'. It distinguishes from generic 'get_balance' sibling by specifying Polymarket context, and differentiates from 'waiaas_pm_get_positions' by emphasizing token balances (USDC.e) and specific CTF token holdings rather than abstract trading positions.

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 implies usage through specificity (Polymarket-specific vs generic balance), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'waiaas_pm_get_positions' or 'get_assets'. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternatives are stated.

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