search_prediction_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (live quotes, volume, liquidity) and implies a read-only search over active markets, but it says nothing about rate limits, pagination/caps, whether results are ranked, or what happens with zero matches. For an unannotated tool this is decent but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and venue scope before the filter and output details. Nothing to trim.

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?

With five well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers venues, filters, and the shape of results, which is nearly everything needed to call it. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and empty-result behavior, but nothing blocking.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description mirrors the filter set (keyword, category, status, venue) but adds no semantics beyond the schema — it doesn't explain the limit cap, the 'ALL' venue/status interaction, or whether query can be broadened with empty strings.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('active prediction markets') with the exact scope spelled out: seven named venues and the four filter dimensions. An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery tool from siblings like get_market_orderbook or scan_arbitrage_opportunities without opening any 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 description implies the use case ('filter ... to view live quotes, volume, and liquidity'), which tells the agent this is the market-discovery entry point. However, it never explicitly routes against the siblings — nothing says when to prefer this over get_market_orderbook or get_whale_trades, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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