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

Adds important behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that books are bounded to each market's lifetime to prevent post-settlement leaks, and that plan-imposed limits fail closed rather than silently coarsening. This is exactly the kind of hidden safeguard an agent needs to trust its backtest results.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: output definition, return contract, and invocation/safeguard. Key constraint about leak prevention is front-loaded early.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly provides the return shape, per-market point format, and the 1000-point limit. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and understand the failure semantics.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful parameter-adjacent context: the interval is a resampling interval, returned history is bounded by the plan window, and 1-50 ids come from a specific sibling search tool. The coin parameter is left to the schema, which already documents plan restrictions well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it produces mid-price paths per Polymarket market for backtesting, resampled to a fixed interval. It distinguishes itself from sibling snapshot/candle tools by emphasizing backtesting, resampling, and market-lifetime bounding.

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?

Clearly indicates the intended workflow by instructing the agent to pass 1 to 50 market ids from polymarket_search_markets and describes plan-based limits on interval and history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the backtesting context makes the usage scenario clear.

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