search_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the search function and gives examples; it does not mention result ordering, live vs cached data, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the returned market objects look like.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides helpful examples in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple read-only search with fully documented parameters, the description and schema are minimally viable. However, the lack of annotations and output schema leaves the agent without guidance on return value shape, ordering, or behavior relative to sibling searching tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds example keyword values but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states for query or limit.

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 a specific action (search), a resource (Polymarket markets), and the matching criterion (keyword), with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_market (fetch by ID) and scan_trending_markets (trending, not keyword-based).

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 when to use the tool: when you need markets matching a keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over scan_trending_markets or get_market, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback conditions.

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