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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses a per-call cost of $0.005 USDC on Base, states the data is live, and adds a "not advice" disclaimer. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and caching/latency behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: return contents first, then cost, then data-freshness caveat. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, cost, and data recency — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is how to source a valid token_id, which is the one thing an agent could still get wrong.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented token_id parameter. It only implies that the argument identifies "one outcome" — it never states the token_id format, that it must come from search_markets, or what happens with an invalid/unknown id.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Order-book quote for one outcome") and enumerates exactly what it returns: best bid/ask, mid, spread, and top five depth levels. This clearly separates it from estimate_fill, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a current single-outcome price snapshot, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to estimate_fill/search_markets as the alternative path when a fill simulation or market lookup is needed.

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