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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the scan is limited to top live markets by volume and focuses on settlement wording, but it omits the authentication requirement implied by access_token, return format, rate limits, and how risk is scored.

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 a single efficient sentence and front-loads the action. The leading 'PRO.' is minor noise, but the core statement is compact and clear.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description should do more. It does not explain authentication, return shape, scoring, or parameter behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

There are three parameters and only access_token has schema description coverage (33%). The description does not explain limit, min_score, or access_token semantics, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: scan top live Polymarket markets by volume and list those with risky settlement wording. It distinguishes the output intent from generic market listing, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like live_markets, search_markets, or rule_check.

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?

It implies the tool is for finding markets with risky settlement wording, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer whether to use this instead of rule_check, live_markets, or search_markets.

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