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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the $0.01 USDC cost on Base, the payTo address, the paid 200 response with found:false for unknown entries, and boundaries like no trading/not investment advice. These are important behavioral traits not available from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with cost and purpose, with no real wasted words. The run-on punctuation makes it slightly harder to parse than a structured list, but every clause serves a functional role.

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 tool with no output schema, it covers cost, payment address, parameter selection, unknown-result behavior, and read-only status. The main gap is that it does not describe the success response structure beyond 'market odds', which an agent might need for parsing.

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%, so the schema already documents q, slug, and limit. The description restates the 'not both' constraint and limit range, which reinforces correct usage but adds little new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies a paid Polymarket odds lookup via gamma-api and distinguishes it from generic quote/price siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', so the core action is implied rather than directly stated.

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 invocation context: use q or slug, not both, optional limit, and read-only/no-trading. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for choosing a sibling tool, leaving some usage guidance implicit.

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