get_market_trades

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 mentions the data returned (who traded, side, etc.) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how recent 'recent' is. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core purpose ('Get recent trades for a Polymarket market') and adds specific details about the data returned. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination behavior. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 fully documents the parameters (condition_id, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'condition_id' identifies a market and that results are paginated via limit/offset. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent trades for a Polymarket market'), specifying what data is retrieved (who traded, side, size, price, timestamp). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_trade_price' or 'get_order_book', which also provide trade-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid condition_id, or compare it to siblings like 'get_last_trade_price' (which might give a single price) or 'get_order_book' (which shows pending orders). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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