get_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burdon. It fails to define what 'top' means, how results are sorted, whether full event details or summaries are returned, or any pagination/behavioral notes. The agent is left guessing about the actual response characteristics.

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 short sentences, no filler. The primary action and a use case hint are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by describing return values or behavior. It doesn't specify what an event contains, how top is determined, or the response shape. For a simple tool this is still a notable gap that leaves an agent uncertain about results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the limit paramater with default, min, max, and description. The description adds no extra paramater semantics beyond loosely suggesting 'top' but doesn't link it to the limit value or ordering.

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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('top Polymarket events') and even defines what an event is. It implicitly differentiates from get_market and get_event by focusing on a group of related markets, but it does not explicitly name the singular alternative or contrast them.

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?

It says 'Great for finding multi-market opportunities,' which gives a use case. However, it does not provide when-to-use vs alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to get_event or search_markets instead.

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