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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the paid nature via x402 (cost), but does not explicitly state read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The default window and sorting are described, but overall disclosure is moderate.

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 one sentence plus a brief payment note. It is highly concise, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous 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 tool has no output schema and 2 optional parameters with no annotations, the description provides adequate context: what is returned (markets resolving, sorting, prices), the payment model, and the default window. It is complete for its complexity, though return format details are omitted.

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% (both 'hours' and 'limit' have descriptions in the schema). Baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the score remains at 3.

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 'Active Polymarket prediction markets resolving within the next N hours… sorted by 24h volume, with live prices.' It specifies the verb 'resolving' and the resource 'prediction markets', and the focus on imminent outcomes distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_movers and polymarket_odds.

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 indicates usage is 'for tracking imminent event outcomes,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_movers or polymarket_odds.

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