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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the activity is public and pagination uses an opaque cursor. There is no contradiction with the 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key pagination caveat. There is no filler and every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only activity tool with an output schema and strong annotations, but it omits important invocation context such as how cursor and offset relate and what the optional filters select. It is not fully self-sufficient for a 10-parameter endpoint.

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 only 20%, and the description only adds meaning for two parameters: the wallet address must be an explicit proxy wallet, and the cursor is opaque. Eight other parameters such as types, eventIds, conditionIds, timestamps, offset, and sortDirection are left without added semantic guidance.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('public activity') with a specific scope: an explicit Polymarket proxy wallet address. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_wallet_activity or get_wallet_positions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides useful context by clarifying the data is public and requires an explicit Polymarket proxy wallet address. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_wallet_positions or get_wallet_pnl, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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