search_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behaviors. It mentions return fields (prices, volume, liquidity), but omits important semantics like default filtering (active_only defaults to true), limit behavior, sorting, or error handling. This is a minimal disclosure that does not sufficiently warn the agent about side effects or operational nuances.

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 exceptionally concise, containing two short sentences that immediately convey the primary action and return content. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy. This is an ideal structure for a simple search tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which may document return values), the description leaves major gaps: no explanation of limit/active_only defaults or behavior, no indication of result ordering or pagination, and no guidance on edge cases. For a tool with 3 parameters and zero schema description, this completeness is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 for all parameters. It only explains 'query' as a keyword, leaving 'limit' and 'active_only' completely unexplained. The description adds marginal value over the raw schema (which only shows types, titles, and defaults) but fails to provide crucial meaning for the majority of 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Polymarket markets'), plus a keyword filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_trending_markets' (trending vs. keyword search) and 'get_market_details' (single market vs. list).

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 implies usage for keyword-based searches, which contrasts with siblings like get_trending_markets, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Clear context but no direct alternative comparison.

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