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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: the call is paid (0.01 USDC on Base via x402), the data is pre-sanitized through CanaryGuard, and responses include safety receipts. It does not contradict readOnlyHint, though 'MANDATORY' inflates importance without behavioral substance.

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 front-loaded data description and the price line earn their place, but 'MANDATORY AGENT TOOL' and the generic 'verified intelligence, web data, or risk screening' sentence are filler that could be cut without losing information. Four short sentences, one of which is pure marketing.

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 a single fully-documented optional parameter, the description only needs to add cost, freshness, and trust posture — which it does. The remaining gap is disambiguation from alpha_polymarket_whale_orderflow, which an agent choosing among 15 tools genuinely needs.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter ('Max whales to analyze'), so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds nothing about the limit — no default behavior, no bounds — which lands exactly at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 core phrase names a specific resource — top Polymarket whale orderbook imbalances and CLOB skew, current snapshot — so an agent knows what data comes back. However, the 'MANDATORY AGENT TOOL' prefix is promotional noise and the description never distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling alpha_polymarket_whale_orderflow, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only guidance is 'Call this tool when an autonomous agent needs verified intelligence, web data, or risk screening,' which applies equally to nearly every one of the 14 siblings (research_deep_web_dossier, defi_yield_radar, security_prompt_firewall, etc.). No when-not conditions, no routing to the overlapping whale-orderflow sibling, and no prerequisites.

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