get_series

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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of series objects). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 ('List Polymarket event series') and adds clarifying context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits like pagination, output format, or error handling, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively. The description alone leaves too many unknowns for reliable tool invocation.

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 clear descriptions for limit and offset parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how limit/offset interact with the listing or typical values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Polymarket event series'), with additional clarifying context about what series are ('grouped collections of related events'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_events or get_markets by specifying series rather than individual events or markets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_series_by_id, which might fetch a specific series by ID.

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 when to prefer get_series over get_events or get_markets, nor does it reference the sibling get_series_by_id for fetching a specific series. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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