get_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and sorting capabilities but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or what format the results return. The description adds some context about filtering scope but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently communicate core functionality. The first sentence establishes the main purpose and filtering capabilities, while the second provides a usage tip. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of filtering versus sorting 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 tool with 16 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but doesn't provide sufficient behavioral context for a complex filtering tool. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally address what kind of data is returned, but it doesn't.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'volume, liquidity, dates, tags, and status' which aligns with some parameters, and suggests sorting by 'volume descending' which relates to the 'order' and 'ascending' parameters. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose with 'List and filter Polymarket prediction markets', specifying both the action (list/filter) and resource (prediction markets). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_market' (singular) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'get_events' or 'search'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'rich filtering' capabilities and suggesting 'Sort by volume descending to find the most active markets'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'get_events', or 'get_sampling_markets', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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