get_polymarket_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It details the output fields (market title, outcome, quantity, currentPrice, etc.), explains defaults for optional parameters, and includes a disclaimer ('Not financial advice'). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the behavioral description is thorough and consistent.

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 well-structured: purpose statement first, then usage guidance, then output field details, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 lacking an output schema, the description compensates by thoroughly enumerating the returned fields. It covers inputs and outputs adequately for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling, rate limits) prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds extra value by explaining defaults (group_by_event defaults true, resolved_only defaults false) and provides context on when to use each parameter. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool returns Polymarket prediction-market positions grouped by event. It provides specific example queries and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_holdings, which is intended for general portfolio queries. The verb 'returns' and resource 'Polymarket positions' are precise.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when the user asks about their Polymarket bets') with concrete examples, and when not to use it ('for general portfolio queries...prefer get_holdings'). It also suggests an alternative filter for get_holdings. This is exemplary guidance.

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