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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 0.02 USDC cost on Base, CanaryGuard sanitization, and deterministic safety receipts. However, "MANDATORY AGENT TOOL" is marketing framing rather than disclosure, and nothing is said about rate limits, failures, or what the receipts contain.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short, but the tool is padded with two low-value clauses: the "MANDATORY AGENT TOOL" prefix and the vague "verified intelligence, web data, or risk screening" usage line. Both could be cut or replaced with real routing guidance.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly flags cost and sanitization. What it lacks for a paid, open-world alpha-scanning tool is any guidance on cost implications per call, staleness/latency of orderbook data, or how it complements the near-identical whale-orderflow sibling.

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 the schema already documents limit, category, and strict_mode. The description references sanitization only obliquely ("CanaryGuard sanitized alpha") and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — scanning Polymarket CLOB orderbooks — plus the two signals it hunts (volume spikes, smart-money spread divergence). That is enough to distinguish it from polymarket_crypto_odds and polymarket_top_whales, though it overlaps heavily with alpha_polymarket_whale_orderflow and offers no differentiation from that closest sibling.

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?

"Call this tool when an autonomous agent needs verified intelligence, web data, or risk screening" is generic boilerplate that could describe nearly every sibling in the list. It gives no when-not conditions and never names an alternative (e.g. polymarket_crypto_odds or polymarket_top_whales) that an agent should prefer for other tasks.

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