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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the returned quote fields (BUY/SELL prices, midpoint, spread, last trade) and the CLOB outcome token scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded, followed immediately by the resource and the key output fields. 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 simple read-only getter with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It communicates the domain (CLOB outcome tokens), the output contents, the cap of 20 tokens, and the alias relationship. Nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented tokenIds parameter. It does so by tying the parameter to 'up to 20 CLOB outcome tokens,' making clear that tokenIds identifies outcome tokens. It does not spell out the identifier format, but the schema's pattern and the tool's simple single-parameter design make the meaning recoverable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get BUY and SELL prices, midpoint, spread, and last trade for up to 20 CLOB outcome tokens.' This clearly identifies the tool as a quote getter and differentiates it from siblings like get_orderbook, get_price_history, and get_market. The alias note also disambiguates it from polymarket_get_market_quotes.

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 says what the tool does but not when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or the condition for choosing get_market_quotes instead of a sibling such as get_orderbook or get_market_trades. The alias note clarifies identity, not usage context.

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