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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so credit here is for added context — the 3-percentage-point edge threshold, bounded coverage to matched pregame sports winners, the common $1 payout basis, and explicit no_alerts/unavailable states. It could go further on scan freshness or rate behavior, but the behavioral picture is notably richer than the annotations alone.

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 tool's purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and the sentence about coverage limits and edge thresholds earns its place. The trailing 'Free on every call, with no x402 charge, wallet or account' partially restates the leading 'Free live' and the href, costing a little density.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming each returned field plus the sentinel outcomes. Coverage boundaries and pricing basis are included; only scan cadence or result-volume expectations are left open.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this with 'Call with {}' so the agent knows no arguments are needed. There is nothing further to disambiguate.

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 first sentence names the specific resource (live prediction-market alerts) and its sources (Polymarket, Kalshi, Novig), and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as fair-value or second-date-bet, so the sibling-routing element is only implied by 'Reuses the thesis fair-value comparison.'

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?

'Call with {}' makes invocation unambiguous, and the no_alerts/unavailable outcomes tell the agent how to read edge cases. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the related fair-value or market-opening siblings, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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