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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the value is 'current', limited to 'public' positions, and requires an explicit proxy wallet address rather than resolving one automatically. It also reveals the alias relationship with the polymarket_ sibling.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The alias is front-loaded to immediately orient the agent, and the actual behavior is stated clearly in the second sentence.

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 tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete: it states the resource, the scope, the alias, and the requirement for an explicit proxy wallet address. No critical information is missing.

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%, and the walletAddress parameter is fully documented with type, pattern, and the Google sign-in caveat. The description only reinforces 'explicit proxy wallet address' without adding semantics the schema lacks, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('current total value of public Polymarket positions') and scopes it to an explicit proxy wallet address. It also identifies itself as an alias of polymarket_get_wallet_portfolio_value, making it unambiguous among 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 clearly conveys when to use it: to retrieve the total current value of public positions for a proxy wallet address. The schema adds a concrete exclusion by noting Google sign-in does not supply a wallet address. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related queries like positions or PnL, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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