prediction-markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: includes crowd-sourced outcome probabilities, USDC volume, liquidity, resolution date; supports keyword filtering; costs $0.05/call. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or rate limits, leaving some uncertainty about response structure.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's core function, followed by key included data and a usage suggestion. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, data fields, and cost. However, it could be more complete by describing the expected response format or clarifying that only active markets are returned.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the three parameters (query, min_volume, limit) with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, only restating 'Filter by keyword' and implying min_volume and limit through 'top' and sorting. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns 'top active Polymarket prediction markets sorted by trading volume', specifying the resource (Polymarket prediction markets) and the action (returns top ones sorted by volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket-accuracy-score or polymarket-intel by focusing on market listing with probabilities and volume.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to gauge market consensus on events before making decisions.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the agent to understand its primary use.

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