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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses the $0.005 USDC per-call cost, the payment challenge behavior for unpaid calls, and that no data means no cost. It also lists the output fields, providing transparency about what to expect.

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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose: stating the result, the use case, and the cost/technical details. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers input (condition id), output fields, cost, and a use case. It doesn't specify the exact response format, but given the lack of an output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides enough context for correct usage.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit range and full condition id format with examples). The description repeats these without adding new semantic meaning, so it aligns with the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 states it retrieves recent public trade prints for a specific Polymarket market, specifying the key identifier (condition id) and the output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on trades rather than events, markets, or other 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?

It provides a concrete use case ('see whether a quoted price is actually trading and who is behind the flow') and mentions cost and payment behavior, which informs when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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