get_prediction_market_odds

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that odds are 'aggregated from multiple sources' and includes a price ('Price: $0.50'), which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args, Returns, and Price. Each sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information. However, the 'Price: $0.50' line could be integrated more smoothly, and the structure is functional but not exceptionally polished.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage (0%), the description does an adequate job. It explains the purpose, parameters, and returns at a high level, and the output schema will handle return details. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools in similar domains, it lacks sufficient context about behavioral traits and usage differentiation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section that briefly explains 'event_id' and 'query', adding some semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide details on format, constraints, or how these parameters interact (e.g., whether both can be used together). With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 prediction market odds (aggregated from multiple sources).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('prediction market odds'), and key characteristic ('aggregated from multiple sources'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_polymarket_odds' or 'search_polymarket', which appear related to similar domains.

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 two optional parameters (event_id and query) but doesn't explain when to use one over the other or when to use this tool compared to sibling tools like 'get_polymarket_odds' or 'search_polymarket'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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