get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It lists the returned fields (question, condition_id, token ids, etc.), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior, response format, or side effects. Some behavioral detail is present, but it lacks completeness.

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, dense sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output fields. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word contributes value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough enumeration of the resolved fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the result. It could be improved by noting potential errors (like invalid or unknown slugs) or the format of the response, but the essential context is covered well.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Full polymarket.com market URL, or the bare market slug.' The tool description essentially repeats this without adding new semantics like examples, format constraints, or edge cases. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Resolve') and resource ('polymarket.com market URL or bare slug'), and enumerates the specific output fields. This makes it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search_markets or get_order_book.

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 when you already have a market URL or slug and need resolved metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternative references are mentioned.

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