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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the volume is 'live taker volume' and that it is 'measured in shares', which clarifies the data semantics and unit.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The alias note is useful, and the scope, resource, and unit are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't elaborate on the dynamic nature of 'live' data, but the openWorldHint annotation already signals that behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden, but the single eventId parameter is self-explanatory by name. The phrase 'one event and its markets' adds context that eventId refers to an event with associated markets, though it does not explain the identifier format, source, or constraints beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('live taker volume'), a precise scope ('one event and its markets'), and a unit ('shares'). It also explicitly identifies itself as an alias of polymarket_get_event_live_volume, which helps an agent distinguish it from the many other getters in the sibling list.

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 identifies polymarket_get_event_live_volume as the equivalent alternative, so an agent knows they are interchangeable. However, it provides no explicit conditions for when to use this tool versus other event/market volume or trade tools, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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