polymarket_place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this executes a real trade with real funds, includes price bounds (0-1), and specifies size in shares. However, it doesn't disclose prerequisites like allowance or balance, nor what happens on success or failure, which are significant gaps for a trade execution tool.

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 short sentences: the main action, a caution, and key constraints. There is no fluff, and critical information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema means the description should explain return values, and it doesn't. It also doesn't mention the need for prior actions like updating allowance, or how the order behaves on the order book. The tool is a trading operation with high stakes, so the missing context around prerequisites and results makes it incomplete.

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 provides some meaning for 'price' (between 0 and 1) and 'size' (in shares), but does not explain 'token_id' at all. The enum for 'side' is self-documenting, but overall the parameter explanations are insufficient for 4 required parameters.

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 'Place a limit order on Polymarket', which is a specific verb+resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'limit order', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'polymarket_place_market_order'.

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 for when to use the tool: when placing a limit order. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the name and description make the usage situation clear. A caution about real funds adds context for the user to consider before using.

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