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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.05 per call), authentication requirements (x402 or API key), and a disclaimer that data is educational, not financial advice. It also mentions plan limitations and points to get_catalog for further pricing. This is substantial coverage of access and operational constraints, though it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 relatively long, but each part adds value: the purpose, the data content, the pricing, and the payment mechanism. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function and structured clearly with a 'HOW TO PAY' section. There is no filler, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical info.

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?

For a straightforward data retrieval tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, how to filter, and how to access it. It also directs users to get_catalog for broader context. The only gap is a lack of detail on 'limit' behavior and default values, which are partially in the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that condition_id and side are filters, but it does not specify allowed values for side (e.g., YES/NO) or the format of condition_id. The 'limit' parameter is not explained beyond its default in the schema. Overall, it adds some meaning but not complete semantics.

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 specific resource (first-time Polymarket bettors/fresh wallets) and action (getting fills with details like fill size, side, outcome price, and rolling totals). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'get_polymarket_whales' by focusing on new wallet insider patterns, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a specific use case—detecting suspiciously confident new wallets in Polymarket markets—and mentions filtering by condition_id and side. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving usage context to the agent's inference.

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