search_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral details: it uses the site's real search backend, returns a flat list (flattening parent events), and includes specific fields (best bid/ask, spread, token IDs). It also warns about the no-op endpoint. Missing details like auth/rate limits are minor for a read-only search 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical about the no-op endpoint is useful and the output details are compact. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, why it is reliable (real backend), and what the return shape looks like. It could mention ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter partially covers that. It adequately supports selection and invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mostly re-emphasizing keyword search. Limit and include_closed are not elaborated, but the schema handles them adequately.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Polymarket markets'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that retrieve specific market data or order books. It also states the output ('flat list of markets with best bid/ask, spread and outcome/token ids'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for keyword-based market discovery but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_market or get_quote. It does mention a useful distinction (Gamma's own /markets?search= is a no-op) that guides usage, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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