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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely new behaviour: paid tiers receive live rows with trader names and sizes while free tier receives data a day late and anonymised — critical for interpreting freshness and completeness. It also sets expectations that the feed is informational rather than a trading signal.

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 trigger condition and the core scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and tier gating follows logically. The trailing 'Past performance is not indicative of future results' is pure legal boilerplate that adds no selection value to an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description covers freshness, attribution and scope. What remains unstated is volume or pagination behaviour for a feed covering 'every covered question', which could matter at call time.

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 clarify and the baseline applies. The absence of filtering is consistent with the 'across every covered question' framing.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('newest smart money moves across every covered Polymarket question') and frames the triggering user intent ('what is moving on prediction markets now'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower problee_get_smart_money by emphasising cross-question aggregation, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear positive trigger ('when someone asks what is moving ... now'), which is more than most definitions offer. However it names no alternatives and no when-not conditions, so an agent must infer that per-market detail lives in problee_get_smart_money or problee_get_market_trades.

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