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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral trait of 'opaque cursor pagination', but much of this is also reflected in the cursor schema ('Opaque cursor returned in meta.nextCursor'), so the additional disclosure beyond annotations is modest.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, resource, and key constraints. It has no filler, and every phrase ('closed', 'public', 'realized PnL', 'opaque cursor pagination', 'explicit proxy wallet address') 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 an 8-parameter tool, the description relies on the output schema and annotations for much of the context. It adequately covers the main caller decision points: the required wallet address, the closed-position scope, and the pagination model. It is slightly less complete in explaining how optional filters and sorting interact, but the schema's defaults and enums reduce that gap.

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 low at 25%, with only walletAddress and cursor described in the schema. The description mentions the wallet address and cursor pagination, but it does not explain limit, offset, sortBy, sortDirection, eventIds, or conditionIds. Since the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('closed public Polymarket positions'), and an additional result ('realized PnL'). It also distinguishes the operation by scoping it to 'an explicit proxy wallet address', which separates it from related wallet-centric tools 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 phrase 'explicit proxy wallet address' implies that callers must supply a public proxy wallet rather than, say, a Google sign-in wallet. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_wallet_positions or get_wallet_pnl, nor does it list any exclusions.

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