get_market_resolution

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 clearly states what data is shown (initialized/proposed/disputed/resolved status, proposed/final prices, dispute history), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, default ordering, or response structure. It is not misleading, but lacks richness beyond the basic read operation.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key output types in a compact list. Every word earns its place.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and some return values, but it does not explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or how the response is organized. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be helpful for an agent to know what to expect.

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 is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions statuses but does not clarify how parameters like 'first' or 'orderBy' affect the result beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the precise resource: 'UMA oracle resolution status for Polymarket markets.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_market_data by focusing on resolution status, prices, and dispute history. The scope is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when you need UMA oracle resolution status), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not differentiate itself from similar tools like get_disputed_markets or get_market_revisions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and description alone.

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