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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the >= 5000 USD default, the min_usd tunability, the Polymarket public trades API as the source, and the specific fields returned. No contradiction exists.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, which is good. However, it appears truncated mid-sentence at 'before t', which indicates the definition is incomplete. The long field list is justified, but the truncation prevents a higher score.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete: it specifies the source, the threshold, the adjustable parameter, the returned fields, and the intended use case. The main gap is the truncated final phrase and the lack of explicit output-count or sorting behavior, but the presence of the output schema lessens the burden.

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 only describes the single input as 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)', which is generic. The description compensates by revealing the meaningful parameter min_usd and its default threshold. It does not fully document all possible input fields, but it adds semantic value beyond the schema for the main tunable knob.

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 states a specific verb and resource: live whale-tracking on Polymarket, returning the latest large trades with a clear default threshold. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like polymarket_odds_movers or polymarket_resolution_watch because it uniquely focuses on large trade flow and wallet-level data.

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 intended context: it is built for prediction-market agents tracking smart money. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'smart money' use case and the focus on large trades provide enough contextual direction for an agent to select it over volume-anomaly or odds-mover siblings.

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