polymarket_get_markets

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions sorting by volume and lists the fields returned, which adds context beyond a bare statement. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, search semantics, or any potential side effects. It also does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though 'list' implies that.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then succinctly lists the return fields. Every word adds value, no repetition of schema details occurs, and there is no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields, which is helpful. However, with three parameters and no annotation or output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain how to use search or paginate through results, nor does it mention the meaning of limit/offset. For a listing tool of moderate complexity, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the limit, offset, or search parameters. It does not even hint that these parameters exist, nor does it clarify how search works or how pagination is handled. While the schema provides types and defaults, the description adds no value for parameter understanding beyond that.

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 lists prediction markets on Polymarket, sorted by volume, and enumerates the returned fields. The verb 'List' and resource 'prediction markets' make the tool's function immediately understandable and distinct from siblings like get_market (single market) or get_orderbook.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for browsing all markets rather than querying a specific one, there is no mention of sibling tools or situations where another tool would be preferable. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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