get_outcome_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent that the tool returns decoded outcome IDs, side names, and current mid prices, and the word 'current' suggests a real-time snapshot. It does not mention pagination or size limits, but for a simple read-only price getter, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys both action and output. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and return shape. However, it omits any explanation of the network parameter, which is a clear gap in guiding correct usage. The description is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.

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 (network) is not mentioned in the description at all. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining how or why to choose mainnet/testnet, even though the input schema provides an enum and default. An agent relying on the description alone would miss this parameter.

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 clearly states an action ('Get mid prices') and a specific resource ('all outcome markets'), making its purpose unambiguous. The mention of 'mid prices' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_outcome_book, which would provide more detailed order book data.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need mid prices for all outcome markets. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over more detailed market data tools.

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