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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is PAID, gives the exact cost in credits and USDC, explains that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and specifies how to authenticate (X-API-KEY or x402). It also reveals constraints like 'no invented probabilities' and 'venue numbers only', which are critical behavioral traits. Missing are error/limit details, but the core transparency is strong.

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 dense but information-rich, covering the purpose, strategies, constraint, tag usage, and payment/auth details in a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into cost and authentication. It avoids filler and earns its length given the tool's paid and authenticated nature.

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 the tool's complexity (paid, requires auth, domain-specific strategies), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works, the tag parameter, payment method, and auth flow. It does not describe the return format, but there is no output schema and the description points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, which partially compensates. Missing error handling and rate limits, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 has an empty properties object with additionalProperties allowed, and its description points to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The tool description adds meaning by mentioning the specific query parameter '?tag=politics|geopolitics|elections' and its values, which is beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100% (the schema description exists), a baseline of 3 applies, but the tag info raises it to 4.

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 opens with 'Polymarket politics/geopolitics/elections scan' which specifies the exact domain and action. It further details the two strategies ('depth-verified sum-arb on outcome ladders' or 'principal-wire event dislocations') and the core constraint ('no invented probabilities — venue numbers only'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling signal_* tools that target other asset classes or event types.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (for politics/geopolitics/elections scanning) and even includes a query parameter (?tag=politics|geopolitics|elections) to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., signal_polymarket or other signal_* variants) for different domains, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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