get_market_revisions

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 the general behavior (showing when and how moderators intervened) but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Since this is a read-only tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the description doesn't fully detail the return behavior.

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 succinct and front-loaded: two short sentences that immediately state the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no waste.

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 list retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clearly explains what the tool returns and its focus on moderator intervention. It does not describe the exact response format, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.

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% description coverage for both parameters ('first' and 'questionId'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description provides context about the market revisions but does not elaborate on parameter usage, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 moderator revisions/updates for Polymarket markets' and elaborates on the content: 'Shows when and how moderators intervened in market resolution.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_resolution and get_market_data.

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 a clear context of what the tool does, implying it should be used when there is a need to see moderator interventions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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