list_polymarket_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the data source ('Uses the Gamma API') but does not disclose read-only semantics, default filtering behavior (e.g., whether only active events are returned), pagination, or response format. The concept of events bundling markets is useful context but not a behavioral disclosure.

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 concise with three short sentences, front-loading the action. The final sentence 'Uses the Gamma API' adds little value for selection and invocation, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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?

While the purpose is clear and the schema is comprehensive, the description lacks information about the response format (no output schema), default behaviors, and alternatives to sibling tools. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters including defaults, ranges, and enums (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Polymarket events'), and clarifies that events are groups of related markets with a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'search_polymarket_events', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is used for listing all Polymarket events, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus searching/filtering via siblings like 'search_polymarket_events', and no exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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