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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pricing ($0.001 per call via x402 on Base) and filtering criteria (liquid markets, default $10k+ daily volume). It doesn't detail return format but covers key behavioral traits. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a pricing note, no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and logically presents filtering, ordering, and cost 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?

Given the simple tool and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, ordering, and pricing. It lacks precise definition of 'odds swings' but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the default for minVolume24h ($10k) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns Polymarket prediction markets with the biggest odds swings in the last 24 hours, filtered to liquid markets, most-moved first. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_odds and polymarket_resolving.

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 description provides clear context for use: 'fastest way to spot where consensus is shifting.' It implies when to use this tool for checking odds swings, and the pricing note adds practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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