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 the important traits: it is free, returns only 3 results, and applies a $10k/24h volume filter. It omits rate limits, refresh cadence, and whether the paid path requires auth beyond the x402 mention, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core capability and its constraint front-loaded before the paid-tier pointer. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, one-param tool, the description covers scope, filtering, result count, cost model, and the escalation path. Only minor gaps remain: the shape of each returned market and the default window value.

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 0% and the single enum parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does by naming both allowed values ('1h or 24h') and tying them to the ranking window, though it does not state which value is the default.

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 resource (open Polymarket markets), a precise ranking criterion (biggest implied-probability move), the result cap (3), the window options, and the liquidity filter. An agent can tell this apart from polymarket_top_preview, which ranks 'top' markets rather than movers.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a free preview and routes to polypulse_paid_endpoints for the full ranked list, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer polymarket_top_preview over this movers tool, leaving one sibling distinction to inference.

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