get_polymarket_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (fetching a single event and all its markets) and explains the event's structure. While it doesn't mention edge cases or response details, it's sufficiently transparent for a simple 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 short sentences with the key action front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 description explains what an event is and that the tool returns all associated markets, which is sufficient for a single-parameter retrieval tool. It lacks an explicit return value list, but no output schema exists, so the description carries this responsibility adequately. Minor omission: doesn't mention that 'eventId' can be a slug, but that's in the schema.

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 covers 100% of parameter semantics with a description for 'eventId' ('Event ID or slug'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides the needed meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('Polymarket event') and clearly states it returns all associated markets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_polymarket_events and search_polymarket_events, which operate at the collection level.

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 usage: call this when you have a specific event ID or slug and need all related markets. It clarifies the event concept, giving context for choosing this over list/search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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