scan_trending_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key filtering and ordering behavior ('active' and 'ranked by volume'), but it does not elaborate on output structure, potential latencies, or any live-data caveats. The basic read-only nature is implied by 'Fetch' but not expanded.

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, direct sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and output; the second gives the intended use case. Every word earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one optional, fully-documented parameter, no required inputs, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how it ranks results, and when to use it. It could add return-format specifics, but the low complexity makes the absence non-critical.

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 100%: the single 'limit' parameter already has a default, min, max, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('hottest active Polymarket markets ranked by volume'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_markets or get_market. It conveys exactly what the tool returns and by what criterion (volume ranking).

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 'Use this to discover trading opportunities' provides clear contextual guidance on when to select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the discovery-oriented framing is enough to steer an agent toward this tool for top-market exploration.

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