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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned data shape (skill score, edge over odds paid, return, specialty), which is useful, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, pagination, or freshness of 'recent' trades.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then the descriptive payload. The final clause is slightly redundant with the 'skilled... only' framing but otherwise earns its place.

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 simple two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept and much of the return content. It is adequate, though it could more explicitly guide selection against the closely related 'whales'/'smart_money' siblings.

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 both 'min' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, e.g. allowed ranges or default behavior. Baseline 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 (recent large Polymarket trades by skilled traders) and defines the filter concept (Solid/Sharp skill scores, informed whales vs big gamblers). It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but it never names the adjacent siblings ('whales', 'smart_money', 'top_traders') to distinguish this from generic whale or smart-money tools.

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 'skilled only' and 'separates informed whales from big gamblers' framing implies the use case (filtering out noise trades), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool. Usage must be inferred.

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