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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data is live Kalshi pricing, scoped to remaining 2026 FOMC meetings, and includes a gap-in-pp comparison against Polymarket and CME futures. It stops short of stating refresh cadence, latency, or coverage caveats for meetings beyond the next one.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the payload inventory. The second sentence is a dense list of five returned elements, which is slightly crowded but each clause maps to a distinct output component rather than filler.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, what venue the odds come from, the time horizon, and what the cross-venue gap represents. Nothing material is missing for a correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and no parameter-level meaning is required.

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 names a specific resource (Fed/FOMC rate odds) and enumerates its concrete payload: the next meeting's strike breakdown, days-until, rate path, current fed funds rate, and a cross-venue check. It quotes the exact user questions it answers, which cleanly separates it from siblings like base_rate_gap and market_pulse.

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 opens with an explicit 'Use for' trigger covering both 'will the Fed cut, hold or hike' and 'next FOMC meeting odds', giving the agent a clear selection condition. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance stops short of a 5.

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