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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them with pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, the point-per-$1 payout unit basis, and the Ed25519 signed receipt. However, the scoring bar is for behavior beyond annotations, and the paid/x402 mechanics are largely discoverable elsewhere; it is solid but not exemplary on disclosure of failure or rate-limit behavior beyond the note that unusable venues are named with a reason.

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?

Purpose and target venues are front-loaded, followed by payload, then pricing and auth. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing contract path and human-page URL plus the payment paragraph make it denser than needed for an agent deciding whether to call.

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 no output schema and a paid, signed-response tool, the description supplies what an agent needs: the return shape and units, how non-quoting venues are reported, the ambiguity fallback for multiple matching games, the cost and free tier, and the auth binding. Nothing material about how to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's restatement of acceptable input forms nearly duplicates the schema text, adding little interpretive value about matching rules or precedence when input is ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare one market across Kalshi, Polymarket and Novig, computing thesis fair value and cross-venue spreads. It also enumerates the return payload (bid/ask/midpoint, fair value, pairwise spreads, gap to fair value) so the tool's job is unmistakable. It never differentiates itself from lookalike siblings such as wever_quote-compare, wever_atlas-compare or wever_fair-value, which keeps it from a 5.

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 input contract is spelled out concretely (topic string, kalshi:TICKER, or Kalshi/Polymarket URL), and there is a genuine operational rule for when results are ambiguous: several matching games return candidates without charge. Prerequisites are also covered (paid call, wallet proof header). No when-not guidance or named alternative tool is offered, so it 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.