get_polymarket_odds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential costs, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The inclusion of 'Price: $0.15' hints at a cost, but this isn't integrated into behavioral context. More details on what 'current' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached) would improve transparency.

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 and concise, using a clear purpose statement, an 'Args' section for parameters, a 'Returns' section for outputs, and a 'Price' note. Each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. However, the 'Price' line feels slightly disconnected from the main flow, preventing a perfect score.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns, but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on 'odds, volume, and price history.' Overall, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'event_id' is 'The Polymarket event ID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or how to obtain valid IDs. With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive, aligning with the baseline for moderate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current odds for a specific Polymarket event.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('odds'), and scope ('specific Polymarket event'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_prediction_market_odds' or 'search_polymarket,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a specific event ID but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as how to obtain event IDs, or contrast it with related tools like 'get_polymarket_events' for listing events or 'get_prediction_market_odds' for other markets. This lack of contextual guidance leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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