get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, but the description does not disclose limitations, required permissions, response shape, or what 'full details' actually includes. It adds some behavioral context but remains thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action, resource, and scope.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what to pass and that all markets are included. However, without annotations or an output schema, response details and constraints remain underspecified, so the agent still has to make inferences.

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 only parameter, event_id, is already described in the schema as 'Polymarket event ID' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces event-level semantics but adds no new parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get'), names a specific resource ('a Polymarket event'), and adds the distinctive scope 'and all its markets.' This makes it easy to tell apart from market-level siblings like get_market and list-level tools like get_events.

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 phrase 'event and all its markets' gives clear context for when to choose this tool over a single-market tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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