trending_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It specifies the time-window and volume ranking, but it does not state ordering direction, result count limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 one short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the core behavior and market scope.

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 is simple, but the description does not explain the optional top_k parameter or any limits on results. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description is the only guidance for the agent; it leaves a notable gap around controlling result size.

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?

The schema gives top_k only a type and default value with no description, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. Although 'top_k' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description misses the opportunity to clarify its role or constraints.

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 that the tool returns the most active Polymarket markets by 24h volume. This is a specific resource and criterion, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_market (single market) and search_markets (search).

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 the tool is for discovering currently active or trending markets, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_markets or get_market. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.

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