polymarket-accuracy-score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the data source (Polymarket public API, no key required), cost ($0.004 per call, cheaper than competitor), and default lookback (30 days). It also mentions breakdowns by category and filterability, fully covering behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant extras (pricing, source) without unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of competitor pricing may be tangential, 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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main output (accuracy percentage, Brier score, breakdowns) and usage context (filtering, cost, source). It lacks explicit output structure, but overall it's adequately complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default for days_back (30) and implying that category filters the breakdown. It also introduces pricing and source details not in the schema, slightly enhancing parameter context.

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 defines the tool as returning historical Polymarket crowd accuracy metrics (percentage correct, Brier score) with category breakdowns. It uses specific verbs ('historical', 'score') and resource ('Polymarket crowd accuracy'), making the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the unique focus on accuracy metrics sets it apart.

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 like polymarket-category-performance or polymarket-intel. It implies usage for accuracy analysis but doesn't exclude other cases or offer explicit when/when-not recommendations. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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