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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it scans the top 20 active Polymarket markets by 24h volume and returns only markets with anomaly indicators, sorted by anomaly score. It does not mention data freshness or rate limits, but that is acceptable given the annotation and output schema.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded before the scanning methodology. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 no-parameter, read-only feed with an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what universe is scanned, how markets are selected, what is returned, and how results are sorted. Safety is covered by annotations and return values by the output schema, so no material gap remains.

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 baseline is 4. No parameter semantics need explanation, and the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the top anomaly feed for markets with the highest integrity concerns. It adds useful scope details (Polymarket markets, top 20 by 24h volume, anomaly indicators, sorted by anomaly score), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as moltguard_detail, moltguard_market, or moltguard_score.

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 this feed is useful by framing it as the top anomaly overview, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. An agent can infer appropriate use, but routing to a sibling for detail or individual market inspection is left unstated.

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