analyze_thesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the multi-step workflow (extract keywords, search, score, return recommendations), giving the agent a clear picture of what will happen. It doesn't reveal potential side effects like whether it places trades, but the described process is clearly analytical.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence followed by a numbered list of steps and an example. Every part adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the overall purpose and workflow but omits details about max_markets and potential edge cases. It's mostly complete, but the missing max_markets explanation leaves a gap.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description gives an example thesis but doesn't explain the max_markets parameter or its effect on results. It adds some meaning for 'thesis' but leaves max_markets completely undocumented.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Analyze an investment thesis and find the best Polymarket markets to trade.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_markets by focusing on thesis-driven analysis and ranked recommendations.

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 this tool—when a user has an investment thesis—and offers an example thesis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_markets, nor does it state when not to use it.

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