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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it scrapes external resolution URLs, applies prompt-injection sanitization to resolution text, and costs $0.008 USDC on Base — a paid, x402-style tool, which is critical for an agent to know before invoking.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the scanning action and detection signals before the scraping/sanitization and pricing details. No filler, though the multi-clause structure is slightly heavy for one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers detection method, external scraping, sanitization, and price, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly; only usage routing 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, category, and strict_mode are already documented with defaults and meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g., what strict_mode sanitization actually filters), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (scans) plus the exact resources (Polymarket active markets, live CLOB orderbooks) and the signals it detects (volume spikes, smart-money spread divergence). This clearly separates it from polymarket_crypto_odds and polymarket_top_whales, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as polymarket_top_whales or polymarket_crypto_odds. The agent must infer the use case purely from the detection signals mentioned.

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