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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses ~15s freshness, cost ($0.001/call), and payment method (x402), but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or error handling. Does not contradict any annotations (none).

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?

Description is reasonably concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes examples and return fields. Could be slightly tighter, but no wasted sentences.

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, but description explicitly lists all returned fields (outcomes, prices, spread, volume, liquidity, resolution date, URL). Combined with param schema, provides adequate context for a moderately complex tool. Missing some usage boundaries (e.g., max offset), but acceptable.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual examples (e.g., 'fed rate cut') and explains the return format, but does not provide meaningful new details 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 it provides live Polymarket odds via free-text search or slug lookup, and lists returned fields. It differentiates from siblings (polymarket_movers, polymarket_resolving) implicitly by naming but not explicitly, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like polymarket_movers or crypto_prices. Agent must infer from name and description, which is insufficient.

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