market_consensus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It details that two consensus reads can disagree, explains which to trust, flags a structural skew on longshots, and warns against over-interpreting divergence. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 well-organized: core purpose first, then usage, then behavior nuance, then an argument spec. Every sentence adds useful guidance, with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description conveys what data is returned (head_count, capital_weighted, price, divergence), how to interpret it, and the accepted input formats. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results safely.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that the single 'market' parameter accepts an id, slug, URL, or 0x condition id. This gives an agent actionable format guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific resource ('one Polymarket market') and a precise purpose: comparing smart-money consensus to current price. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on wallets, leaderboards, or market listings.

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 explicitly says to use the tool to answer 'what does smart money think about this market?' and to spot disagreement with the crowd. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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