get_live_spread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'best bid, best ask, and spread' and labels the data as 'real-time'. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether the token ID must be an outcome token, but for a simple getter this is acceptable. More detail on data latency or error handling would improve it.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It states what it does, what it returns, and why it's useful—no filler, no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides adequate information: the purpose, the return value (best bid, best ask, spread), and a use case. It doesn't cover potential edge cases like illiquid markets or update frequency, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter tokenId with description 'CLOB token ID'. The tool description adds semantic value by explaining that the token is a 'Polymarket outcome token' and contextualizing the parameter's role in retrieving a spread, which goes slightly beyond the schema's bare description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'real-time bid-ask spread for a Polymarket outcome token'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_live_prices (which would give prices) and get_live_orderbook (which gives full order book) by focusing specifically on the spread.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'useful for assessing market liquidity and trading costs', giving the agent a sense of when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as 'use get_live_orderbook for full depth' or 'use get_live_prices for midprice', so it stops short of a full 5.

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