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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool queries 'live' markets, ranks by volume, and explains the derivation of implied probability from outcome price. It also lists the return fields. While it does not mention rate limits or async behavior, the schema's async parameter description covers that. This is adequate for a read-only query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, then a concise list of return fields and the optional filter. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, output fields, and a key option (free-text filter). Given there is no output schema, describing the return fields is important. The schema adequately covers all parameters. It could add more about when to use async or differentiate from sibling search tools, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

All five parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the free-text filter on the question, but that is redundant with the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('live Polymarket prediction markets, ranked by volume'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also lists key returned fields and differentiates from sibling tools like kalshi_markets (different platform) and polymarket_events (events vs markets).

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 description gives clear context for use: querying live Polymarket markets with optional free-text filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as prediction_markets_search or polymarket_events. This is clear context without exclusions.

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