search_outcomes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search and filter' implies a read-only operation, which gives some transparency, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, network default, or any side effects. The example adds behavioral context by showing how filters combine, but more explicit disclosure would be better.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives a useful example. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff 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?

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a general purpose and use case but does not explain the return structure or cover all parameters (e.g., network, activeOnly). The example helps, but the lack of output schema and minimal behavioral context leaves gaps for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds value by highlighting the key filters (underlying asset, type, keyword) and presenting a concrete example of combining them, but it does not clarify network or activeOnly, which are already described in the schema. Baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('Search and filter') with a clear resource ('outcome markets') and names the filter criteria (underlying asset, type, keyword). It also distinguishes from sibling tool list_outcomes by focusing on finding specific markets, reinforced by the example 'all BTC binary 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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for finding specific prediction markets' with a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_outcomes for unfiltered listings, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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