polymarket_get_market

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what information will be returned, but does not disclose behavior in edge cases such as when no identifier is provided (despite the schema allowing all optional) or when multiple identifiers are supplied. It also does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though the name 'get' implies it.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and return contents, the second gives parameter usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return content. The main gap is the ambiguity around the mandatory nature of the identifier: the description says 'Provide one of' but the schema lists no required parameters, which could confuse an agent. Additional clarity on this would make it complete.

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 description must compensate. It does so effectively by stating that condition_id, slug, or URL are alternative identifiers and providing a concrete URL example. However, it lacks details on the exact format of condition_id and slug, and does not clarify precedence if more than one is provided.

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 verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific prediction market' and enumerates the returned fields (token IDs, current prices, description, liquidity, market status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_get_markets or polymarket_get_orderbook, which target different resources.

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 context by specifying 'a specific prediction market' and instructs the user to 'Provide one of: condition_id, slug, or a full Polymarket URL'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'for multiple markets, use get_markets'), so it stops short of a 5.

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