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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the $0.25 cost, that one request returns the entire board, the rank ordering by 24h volume, and the specific metrics returned (probabilities, spreads, book depth, volumes, edge scores, and a low-certainty summary). It omits auth requirements and rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with what it is and its cost, then the return contents, then usage. Every sentence is informative, though the middle sentence is a dense run-on list of fields that could be tightened.

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 must (and does) enumerate return fields and the summary behavior in detail. Combined with the cheap, read-only, single-request nature of the tool, an agent has nearly everything needed; only edge details like auth or rate behavior are absent.

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 already documents 'limit' and 'min_volume' fully. The description says only 'whole board,' which loosely relates to limit filtering but adds no format, default, or range detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Live prediction-market board scan') plus scope ('whole active board ranked by 24h volume'), and enumerates the returned data fields. It implicitly separates itself from a single-market odds tool via 'whole board' and 'One request, whole board,' but never names the sibling (prediction_odds) outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It supplies clear use cases ('screen prediction markets for mispricing, monitor event risk, or find the events the market itself cannot call'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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