polymarket_update_allowance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool tells the CLOB server to re-check and update on-chain allowance state, which implies a mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, idempotence, or failure behavior, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second immediately provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous content.

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, zero-parameter tool, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It doesn't mention return values or outcome details, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the action, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly omits any parameter info. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools since there is nothing to explain beyond the schema (which is empty).

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 action ('trigger a refresh') and the resource ('USDC allowance for trading on Polymarket'), making it distinct from sibling tools like place_order or get_balance. The verb 'refresh' is specific and conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when orders fail due to insufficient allowance.' This provides clear usage context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is specific and actionable.

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