get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'full event details including nested markets', which gives some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'get').

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what is returned but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance. For a read operation with full schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'slug') documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID or slug', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as format examples or mutual exclusivity.

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 the specific action ('Get a single Polymarket event'), the resource ('by ID or slug'), and the scope ('full event details including nested markets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_events' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single event.

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 usage by mentioning 'by ID or slug', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_events' for multiple events or 'get_market' for market-specific data. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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