search_polymarket

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 a price ('Price: $0.20'), which is useful cost context, but lacks other critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description states it returns 'current odds,' but doesn't explain format or limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details, and ends with price. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be slightly more integrated for flow.

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 (which covers return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It includes purpose, parameters, returns, and price, but misses behavioral traits like rate limits or error cases. For a search tool with cost implications, more context would improve completeness.

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 adds basic semantics: 'query: Search query' and 'limit: Number of results to return,' which clarifies purpose but lacks depth (e.g., query syntax, limit range). It compensates partially but not fully for the schema gap, warranting an average score.

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: 'Search Polymarket events by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Polymarket events'), and scope ('by keyword'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_polymarket_events' or 'get_polymarket_odds', 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 doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_polymarket_events' for unfiltered listing or 'get_polymarket_odds' for specific odds), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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