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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid ($0.02/call or subscription via x402) and that it normalizes across two venues into one schema, but it does not describe return ordering, freshness, rate limits, or whether results are cached/snapshot-based.

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 compact sentences with no wasted wording. Pricing is front-loaded, which is arguably less important than the core purpose, but the purpose follows immediately and is 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?

For a simple, parameter-light read tool, the description covers pricing, venue coverage, and cross-venue schema unification. It still leaves gaps around return ordering, result freshness, and whether top movers are computed over fixed or rolling 24h windows.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as how sorting interacts with limit or how venue=all orders results across venues.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: live markets with the biggest 24h price moves across Polymarket and Kalshi, unified in one schema. It is specific about resource and scope, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings such as live_markets or doubles_today.

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 'biggest 24h price moves', suggesting discovery of top movers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over live_markets or other sibling tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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