query_subgraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states 'execute a custom GraphQL query' without mentioning potential risks (e.g., expensive queries, large responses), rate limits, authentication, or return format. The power and arbitrary nature of GraphQL queries warrant more 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Execute') and resource ('custom GraphQL query against a Polymarket subgraph'). It is concise and contains no filler.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (arbitrary GraphQL queries, multiple subgraphs, optional variables), there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format, query execution behavior, or recommended subgraph selection. This leaves the agent underinformed about important runtime details.

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 all parameters are documented at a basic level. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, the subgraph parameter's schema description is incomplete (lists only 5 of 8 enum values), but this is not the tool description's fault; the description does not compensate either.

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 'Execute a custom GraphQL query against a Polymarket subgraph' clearly identifies the tool as a generic query executor, using a specific verb ('execute'), resource ('Polymarket subgraph'), and distinguishing 'custom GraphQL query' from the feature-specific sibling tools like get_market_data or get_account_pnl.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling getters. It does not mention that this should be used as a flexible fallback when specific endpoints are insufficient, or that specific getters should be preferred for standard data retrieval.

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