get_market_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states it 'Returns full market metadata from the Gamma API' and is a 'Get' operation, implying a read-only nature. However, it does not disclose how the tool handles cases where both slug and conditionId are provided, nor does it mention error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. Every word contributes: it states the action, the target, the source, the return contents, and usage guidance for related tools. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what data is returned ('full market metadata including description, prices, outcomes, and CLOB token IDs'), and how to proceed with the returned conditionId. It also names the API source, which is useful context. There is no missing critical information for a typical use case.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that parameters are alternatives: 'by slug or condition ID,' which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This helps the user understand that either identifier can be used, and it also indicates the return includes a conditionId, which is useful for subsequent calls.

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 the tool's function: 'Get detailed Polymarket market info by slug or condition ID.' It specifies the resource (Polymarket market info), the source (Gamma API), and the contents returned (description, prices, outcomes, CLOB token IDs). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools by detailing its scope and output.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use the returned conditionId to query get_clob_market for live CLOB data, get_market_open_interest for OI, or get_market_resolution for oracle status.' This tells the user when to use this tool (to obtain metadata) and directs them to alternative tools for specific follow-up data, clearly establishing the workflow.

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