search_markets_enriched

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the multi-API enrichment behavior and notes the limit is 'kept small for enrichment speed,' implying performance trade-offs. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when results are empty, how errors are handled, or the structure of the enriched output, leaving some gaps for a complex tool.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose ('Power tool'), and every clause adds value. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (combining three APIs) and the absence of an output schema, the description could explain more about the enriched result format. It does mention 'live CLOB prices' and 'on-chain resolution status,' but doesn't clarify how these appear in the response or whether pagination/limits affect enrichment depth. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 schema already documents all parameters (query, limit, active, closed). The description adds one extra insight about the limit parameter ('kept small for enrichment speed'), but for other parameters it repeats no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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?

Description opens with 'Power tool: search Polymarket markets then auto-enrich each result with live CLOB prices and on-chain resolution status.' This clearly identifies the verb (search+enrich), resource (Polymarket markets), and the unique combined behavior that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_markets or get_live_prices.

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 phrase 'Combines Gamma API + CLOB API + The Graph in one call — no need to chain tools manually' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want both search results and enrichment in a single call, avoiding manual chaining. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the implied use case is strong.

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