DepthFeed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: plan history window bounding, 403 HISTORY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED error, per-request symbol limits, resolution roll-up and 'derived' flag, and spot/perp venue resolution. This goes well beyond 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?

The description is long but information-dense, covering asset classes, resolution rules, symbol ambiguity, venue selection, and plan limits. It opens with purpose and each sentence adds essential detail without repetition or filler.

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 covers purpose, asset scope, resolution, symbol naming, venue disambiguation, history limits, and symbol count. It does not explicitly describe the output format, but OHLCV bars imply the return structure, and the 'derived' flag hints at response contents. The missing venue parameter in the schema is a notable gap, but overall the tool is well-specified.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful symbol formatting examples and resolution semantics, but it also references an optional 'venue' parameter that is absent from the input schema. This discrepancy could mislead the agent into passing an invalid parameter, reducing the value of the additional 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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns OHLCV price bars for US equities/ETFs, Binance spot, and perpetual futures. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_candles and polymarket_get_market, which serve other markets.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool via its asset scope and provides explicit symbol-naming conventions and venue disambiguation. However, it does not directly name alternative tools or state exclusions such as 'use this for equities/Binance, not for Kalshi/Polymarket'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for disclosure is lower. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that this is the only historical data source, that price is null when no trade occurred, and that history is gated by the paid plan's window. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the essential information, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations while covering important caveats like pricing, history availability, and plan restrictions.

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 read-only data tool with 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what data is returned (OHLC, volume, open interest), the null-price edge case, the time reach, and the paid-plan gating. There is no ambiguity about what to expect from the tool.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It correctly mentions the clamping behavior but that is also in the parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Hourly OHLC candles... for a Kalshi market' and explicitly lists the fields (yes bid, yes ask, traded price, volume, open interest). It also distinguishes itself from sibling orderbook tools by stating that this is the only history that exists and that Kalshi serves no historical order book.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever historical candle data for a Kalshi market is needed, as it is the only available history and extends up to a year. It contrasts with orderbook tools, but does not explicitly say 'use this instead of orderbook for historical data' or mention alternatives by name. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the correct choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral constraint of requiring a paid plan, which is beyond the annotations and provides useful context. However, it does not specify what happens if the plan is not paid.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the prerequisite in a clear, efficient manner.

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 tool with one parameter, the description adequately explains the output (yes/no order-book depth). No output schema is provided, but the description covers the essential aspects. It could be more specific about the depth structure, but it is largely complete.

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 100%, with the ticker parameter description stating it comes from kalshi_search_markets. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the latest yes/no order-book depth for a Kalshi market by ticker. The verb 'get' and resource 'order-book depth' are specific, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like kalshi_get_snapshots.

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 mentions it requires a paid plan, which is a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kalshi_get_snapshots or limitless_get_orderbook. The context of the ticker coming from kalshi_search_markets is implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing that a paid plan is required and history is window-limited. It does not contradict annotations; instead, it supplements them with actionable constraints.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core functionality, the second adds key usage constraints. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 explains what the tool does and its access constraints, but omits details about the response format or what constitutes a 'snapshot'. Given no output schema, the agent might need more information to interpret results, though the name and context provide some clarity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters documented adequately. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 clearly states it retrieves historical yes/no depth snapshots for a Kalshi market by ticker. The verb 'get' and resource 'snapshots' specify the action and object, and the reference to 'historical' distinguishes it from real-time tools like kalshi_get_orderbook.

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 provides important context: requires a paid plan and history is gated by plan window. This helps agents understand prerequisites and constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs sibling tools (e.g., kalshi_get_orderbook), though the historical nature is implied.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that results are DepthFeed-exclusive and that a paid plan is required, which are important behavioral traits. 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 sentences, no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Given the presence of annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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 100%, and the description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema's descriptions. The paid plan note for coin is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists Kalshi crypto markets with full yes/no depth, distinguishing it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kalshi_get_orderbook or kalshi_get_snapshots.

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 provides critical prerequisite information about requiring a paid plan and the 402 error for free plans. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Kalshi or market search tools among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: ordering of bids and asks, the prerequisite of a paid plan, and that it retrieves L2 depth. This adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose and ordering details, and contains no extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 covers purpose, ordering, and prerequisite. With one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, it is fairly complete. It could briefly mention the return format (e.g., 'returns bids and asks arrays'), but this is a minor 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'slug.' The description adds meaningful context by noting that the slug comes from limitless_search_markets, helping the agent understand how to obtain valid values.

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 clearly states the tool gets the 'Latest L2 depth' for a Limitless market by slug, specifying ordering (bids descending, asks ascending). This distinctively describes the verb and resource, differentiating it from siblings like kalshi_get_orderbook or limitless_get_snapshots.

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 explicitly states 'Requires a paid plan,' providing a clear constraint on when the tool can be used. However, it does not offer alternatives or explain when not to use it relative to other tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the paid-plan constraint and history window clamping. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich the safety or mutation profile significantly.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint (paid plan). It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could benefit from a brief note on return format.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., array of snapshots, pagination metadata). It also omits guidance on cursor usage. However, with openWorldHint and sibling tools with similar patterns, the description is not critically incomplete.

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?

All five parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that history is clamped to the plan window but does not explain syntax, defaults, or interactions between parameters (e.g., how cursor and time filters combine).

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 explicitly states it retrieves 'Historical L2 depth snapshots (time series) for a Limitless market by slug,' clearly defining the verb (get) and resource (historical snapshots). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'limitless_get_orderbook' (presumably current order book) and other platforms' snapshot tools, though it doesn't name them directly.

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 mentions a paid-plan requirement and plan-based history gating, which helps set expectations but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when current depth is needed vs. historical). It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying 'DepthFeed-exclusive' and 'Requires a paid plan', which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details about pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter.

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 consists of two concise sentences that deliver the core purpose, exclusivity, and requirement. There is no fluff or redundant information. The structure front-loads the most important 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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain the structure of the response (e.g., list of markets, fields). It does not mention what the return value contains. However, given the simplicity of a 'list markets' tool and the existing sibling tools, the omission is a gap but not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the 'coin' parameter by explaining plan-specific restrictions (BTC-only for free plans). This goes beyond the schema's enum and description. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('list'), resource ('currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets'), and an important qualifier ('DepthFeed-exclusive'). It distinguishes from non-Limitless search tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Limitless tools like limitless_get_orderbook or limitless_get_snapshots.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Requires a paid plan' and focuses on listing open markets. However, it does not explicitly guide when to prefer this tool over alternatives like kalshi_search_markets or polymarket_search_markets, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: paid plan requirement, credit restriction, output format (LLM-readable lines with specific fields), and pagination fail-closed with SHA-256 verification.

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 concise, with every sentence adding essential information, and key constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, output format, error behavior, and verification, making it complete for the tool's functionality.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies, and the description compensates by detailing the return format.

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 clearly states it returns every active Polymarket market across all categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_search_markets and polymarket_get_market.

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 explicitly mentions the paid data plan requirement and that AI credits do not unlock the export, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose contrasts with sibling tools.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description only restates the parameter options and does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal context.

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, front-loaded with the action. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity of the tool (fetch a single market) and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate for the task. It does not describe the return format, but the context of sibling tools and the platform knowledge may compensate. It could be slightly improved by noting typical usage.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity requirement ('Provide exactly one of market_id or slug'), which is not encoded in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a single Polymarket market by id (market_id) or by slug', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_search_markets which return multiple results.

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 provides clear guidance by stating 'Provide exactly one of market_id or slug', which tells the agent when to use each parameter. It implies the tool is for fetching a specific market, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives.

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

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'History depth is gated by plan' informs agents of access limitations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradiction.

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?

Concise two-sentence description, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by actionable usage hints. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Covers basic purpose and key parameters (interval, include_orderbook) but lacks return value description and does not quantify plan gating. With no output schema, description could be more complete, but it provides adequate context for an agent familiar with order-book snapshot concepts.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; it merely reiterates usage of interval and include_orderbook. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it provides historical order-book snapshots for one Polymarket market, specifying 'time series' and mentioning interval and include_orderbook. Distinguishes from siblings by naming 'Polymarket' and focusing on one market, but does not explicitly differentiate from other get_snapshots tools.

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?

Provides internal usage tips (use interval to downsample, include_orderbook for full ladder) but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like polymarket_get_market or other providers' snapshots. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context about returned fields and plan limitations (e.g., coin parameter restrictions). No contradictions.

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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and return values, then usage guidance. No extraneous words.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains return fields and usage, but could mention pagination or filtering via cursor/limit. Still adequate given schema cover.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant parameter meaning beyond the schema; the extra plan info is already in the schema description.

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 clearly states it lists Polymarket up/down crypto prediction markets for a coin, specifies returned fields (market id, slug, window, status, timing), and distinguishes from sibling tools by directing usage of returned ids with polymarket_get_market or polymarket_get_snapshots.

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?

Explicitly says to use returned id/slug with two other tools, indicating a workflow. Does not provide exclusions or when-not-to-use, but gives clear context for downstream usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by specifying it is a cross-venue, top-of-book snapshot and a one-shot overview, providing context beyond structured fields.

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?

Single sentence with clear front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value; no wasted text.

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 no-parameter snapshot tool, the description covers scope and behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or data structure, which could be useful given no output schema.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description simply states 'No arguments,' which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds clarity without redundancy.

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?

Description explicitly states it provides a cross-venue top-of-book snapshot for all assets across Polymarket, Kalshi, and Binance. This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target single venues or specific order books.

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?

Description implies usage for a one-shot overview with no arguments, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives like venue-specific order book tools. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld hints; description adds specifics (plan, rate limits, history window, coin access) and notes keyless demo distinction, providing useful context beyond 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; every part adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return values (plan, rate limits, etc.) and no additional context needed. Complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

No parameters (baseline 4 per rules). Schema coverage is 100%, description adds meaning by listing what the tool shows.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'show' and resource 'current session's plan, rate limits, history window, and coin access', distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are market-related.

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?

Context is clear (check session info), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; however, siblings are unrelated so confusion is minimal.

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