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 'current' and 'public' context, but it does not discuss return format, pagination, or any operational limits beyond what the annotations and output schema provide.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the object and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. No additional details about return structure are necessary because the output schema exists.

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 a regex pattern and a note about Google sign-in. The tool description's 'explicit proxy wallet address' largely repeats the schema text, adding no new semantic meaning.

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'), a precise resource ('current total value of public Polymarket positions'), and a clear scope ('explicit proxy wallet address'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_wallet_positions and get_wallet_pnl by naming 'total value' rather than positions or PnL.

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 specifies the prerequisite of an explicit proxy wallet address, and the schema adds that Google sign-in does not supply an address, giving clear context for when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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