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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses payment requirements, cost per credit, 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, and the need for X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band payment. It also explains the algorithm's logic, which gives insight into expected behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, error responses, or read-only nature.

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 a single dense run-on sentence containing multiple technical clauses and payment details, making it difficult to parse. It is not front-loaded or well-structured; key information (payment, class parameter) is buried mid-sentence. The length is justified by complexity, but the lack of formatting and clear separation hurts readability.

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 (finance-ladder scan, CDF pricing) and absence of output schema, the description provides substantial algorithmic detail and payment context. However, it does not describe the response shape, pagination, or error cases. It partially compensates by pointing to 'instruments' for parameter documentation, but still leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation and expected output.

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 input schema is empty, but the description explicitly documents that a 'class' parameter (commodities|stocks|crypto) is required. It also directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, compensating for the schema's lack of structured definitions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not cover potential additional parameters.

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 is a scan tool for Polymarket finance-ladder signals, specifying the algorithm (close-above/touch rungs priced against CDF or realized-vol bands) and required class parameter. It differentiates from sibling signal tools through its unique 'Ticker' name and specific scan logic, though the technical jargon may obscure the core purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other signal scanners (e.g., signal_equities, signal_crypto). It mentions the required ?class parameter and payment requirements but lacks guidance on selection context or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or use cases.

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