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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: resampling behavior, market-lifetime bounding to avoid risk-free post-settlement fills, the 1000-point cap, and plan-based limits that fail closed rather than silently coarsening. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent trust the returned data.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before returning format and parameter constraints. Every sentence contributes: what the data is, the output shape, the source of ids, and the plan-based bounds.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline, including interval_seconds, per-market points with timestamp and price fields, and the point cap. It also covers allowed inputs, defaults, and failure semantics, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, and the description still adds meaning: ids must come from polymarket_search_markets, interval has a plan-defined floor that is refused rather than rounded, and coin behavior distinguishes keyless demo (BTC-only) from full plans. This is meaningful enrichment over the raw 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 names a specific resource and action: it provides resampled mid-price paths per Polymarket market for backtesting. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing backtesting-specific constraints such as bounding to each market's lifetime and preventing post-settlement leakage.

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 usage context: pass 1 to 50 market ids from polymarket_search_markets, and notes that history and interval floor are determined by the plan. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions versus sibling tools like bars or snapshots, but the backtesting framing makes the intended use clear.

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