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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: dollar totals count each fill once so they run roughly half of headline two-sided volume, and small fills may be dropped in busy markets with the text saying so. It also confirms read-only semantics and warns that flow is descriptive rather than predictive.

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 usage triggers are front-loaded before the mechanics, and each sentence carries information (input forms, aggregation rule, truncation caveat, read-only note). It is long and dense, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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?

Covers input forms, resolution fallbacks, time window, return contents (net per outcome, trade count, up to 8 largest trades, up to 5 holders), and known data caveats. With an output schema present, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it enumerates the accepted 'market' forms (slug, supported market/event link, condition id, plain words) and explains the multi-outcome and ladder-rung resolution rule, plus the 1-168 hour window with a 24 default. This is genuinely additive over the schema text.

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?

States a specific resource (Polymarket market money flow) with four concrete user-question examples that pin down the exact intent, including 'who is buying Yes on the Fed October decision' and 'who holds the most of this market'. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_market_odds or get_price_history, which answer price rather than flow questions.

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 opening clause gives explicit triggering conditions tied to user phrasings ('who is buying or selling', 'why its odds moved', 'where the money is going'), which is strong guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer siblings such as get_whale_trades or get_trader_positions, so a bit of overlap remains unaddressed.

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