get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' and the listed return fields make clear this is a read-only fetch returning a market snapshot, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response structure details, potential error behavior, or how condition_id versus slug resolution behaves.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place: the verb, resource, and return fields.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource and the main payload categories. It stops short of fully specifying the shapes of outcomes, prices, volume, and liquidity, but that level of detail is not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, with market_id described as 'Polymarket market ID (condition_id or slug)'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with complete schema coverage 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 names the exact operation ('Get full details') and target resource ('a Polymarket market'), then enumerates the returned fields: description, outcomes, prices, volume, liquidity. This clearly distinguishes get_market from price-only or search-oriented siblings like get_prices and search_markets.

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 use when a caller needs the full detail set for a single market, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_prices, get_event, or search_markets. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues; the selection must be inferred from the word 'full'.

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