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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the ranking criterion, the window options, the fields returned, and the 'No charge on service fail' policy. It does not contradict 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output details, followed by a short usage context and a billing caveat. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence is dense and the final 'No charge on service fail' sentence is somewhat ancillary to selecting the tool.

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 that there is only one generic input parameter and no detailed output schema, the description covers the essential information: ranking logic, time windows, returned fields, and intended use. The main gap is the exact input syntax for the window parameter, which an agent would need to invoke 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 input schema only defines a generic 'input' string described as 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)', so the description meaningfully adds that a window parameter exists and what its values are (1h / 24h / 1wk). However, it does not specify the exact parameter name or format expected inside the JSON/text input, which leaves some ambiguity for invocation.

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 resource (Polymarket odds movers) and the core behavior: active markets ranked by biggest price swing over a time window. It also lists the output fields, making the tool's purpose concrete. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the 'biggest price swing' focus differentiates it from volume- or wallet-oriented siblings.

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 a contextual use case: 'momentum signal prediction bots scan before entering a market.' This implies when the tool would be useful, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like polymarket_whales or volume_anomaly, and there is no mention of exclusions or conditions where another tool should be used.

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