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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: it is a paid tool ($0.05 via x402 in USDC on Base or Solana) and it filters out empty and illiquid books. It also adds a 'data, not advice' disclaimer. It stops short of describing payment failure behavior, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees beyond 'right now'.

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?

A single dense sentence, but well front-loaded: the payment cost and rails come first, then the return content, then the filtering and disclaimer. Every clause is informative, though the semicolon chain is heavy.

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, the description must convey return shape and does so by listing the output fields. Payment terms and filtering behavior are covered. Remaining gaps are minor: nothing about pagination, ordering guarantees, or error behavior on failed payment.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (kind, limit, min_edge_pp, max_spread_pp, min_depth_usd) are already documented with defaults. The description mentions the filtering dimensions (edge, spread, depth) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: a ranked scan of mispriced liquid Hyperliquid prediction markets, scoped to crypto and tokenized-stock binary markets. It enumerates the returned fields (model probability vs bid/ask, edge in pp, spread, depth, book age), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pm_implied, list_pm_markets, and get_gaps.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'most mispriced ... right now' and the liquidity filters signal a screening use case, but no sibling is named and no when-to-use/when-not condition is given. An agent must infer this tool's place among get_gaps, get_pm_implied, and list_pm_markets.

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