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

Annotations provide the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful context: a per-call cost of $0.01 USDC. However, it never explains why readOnlyHint=false for what appears to be a data-fetch call, nor describes result shape or latency.

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 compact sentence with the resource and cost front-loaded, no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but efficient for what it contains.

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?

No output schema, no annotations clarifying return content, and 0% parameter coverage. An agent still does not know what a result looks like (market names, prices, volumes?), how 'query' is matched, or what 'limit' bounds. Incomplete for a 2-param tool with a real cost per call.

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% for both parameters. The phrase 'for any topic' loosely implies what 'query' accepts but gives no format or syntax, and 'limit' is completely unexplained in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource precisely (Polymarket prediction market odds/live probabilities) and the source venue, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like market-intel or crypto-price. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. market-intel for macro/market questions). The only context given is a price note, which is not usage guidance.

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