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

Despite readOnlyHint being true, the description adds essential behavioral context: the feed holds at most 12 moves, doesn't state cause, and is not proof of informed money. It also advises snapshotting for history, which is beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then clarifying limitations. Every sentence adds value with no 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 read-only feed with simple parameters, the description covers purpose, limitations, and usage guidance fully. The output is self-explanatory from the schema, so no further detail is needed.

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 both parameters are documented. The description clarifies that 'limit' defaults to 12 and 'min_pct' is a filter on implied-probability move, adding context about the feed's inherent ~1% threshold.

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 identifies the tool as listing recent price drops against the bettor, with specifics about the sort order and stats shown. It is clearly distinct from siblings, which cover feed health, fixtures, and market summaries.

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 states when to use it (dropping-odds signal, market-movement narratives, value screening) and what it is not (not a line-movement history, not multi-book, not bet-placement), which steers the agent away from misuse.

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