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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior (top 20 by volume) and the sorting (by anomaly score), which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, mention any rate limits or authentication needs, or describe what the returned anomaly indicators look like. Given the tool is a feed, the description gives adequate context but could add more behavioral detail.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then provides the operational details (volume filter, sorting) in a compact, readable way. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (though not detailed here), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, how it selects markets, and how results are ordered. There is no missing information that would prevent a correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% trivially, and there is nothing to add beyond the description's explicit mention of the fixed scope (top 20 markets). This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top anomaly feed'), and immediately explains the scope: scans top 20 active Polymarket markets by 24h volume, filters for anomaly indicators, and sorts by anomaly score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like moltguard_score or moltguard_market, which focus on individual market scores or details.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a feed of high-integrity-concern markets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list suggests other tools handle specific scoring or verification, so the context is clear enough for an agent to select it without confusion.

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