get_polymarket_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'active' events with 'current odds', which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with potential API costs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns, and ends with price information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and no annotations, the description provides good context on purpose, parameters, and returns. It includes price information, which is valuable. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases for a paid tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining 'category' as an optional filter with examples (politics, crypto, sports) and 'limit' as the number of events to return, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles. This effectively covers both parameters.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get active Polymarket prediction market events') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_polymarket_odds' and 'search_polymarket' by focusing on active events rather than odds or search functionality.

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 context by specifying 'active' events and listing categories, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_polymarket_odds' or 'search_polymarket'. It provides clear filtering options but lacks explicit comparison guidance.

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