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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool is paid ($0.002 USDC on Base) and the resolution criteria are sanitized. It stops short of explaining the payment/x402 flow or what 'sanitized' guarantees, which matters for an open-world paid call.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The subject matter is front-loaded and the pricing detail is appended compactly rather than buried in prose.

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 described. However, this is a paid, open-world tool and the description never explains how the $0.002 USDC charge is settled or what the agent should expect procedurally. That leaves a meaningful operational gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level information is missing because no parameters exist.

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 resource and scope: Federal Reserve interest rate decisions plus macro prediction market odds, with sanitized resolution criteria. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like polymarket_crypto_odds or polymarket_alpha_divergence; the macro-vs-crypto split is left to inference.

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 implied by the subject matter: an agent can reasonably infer this tool is for Fed/macro questions rather than crypto price markets. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the four sibling polymarket tools, so routing remains a judgment call.

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