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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data source (daily Polymarket wallet lists), the inclusion of live prices and sale state, and the fact that no API key is required.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the access constraint. Every clause adds information with no filler.

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 read-only, zero-parameter listing with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what the data contains and that no key is needed. What's absent is any hint of return shape (list length, pagination) or freshness guarantees, though these are minor for a simple listing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and nothing is missing.

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 names the specific resource (smart-money plans / daily Polymarket wallet lists) and what data accompanies it (live prices, sale status). It's clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'plans' or 'smart_coverage', leaving the agent unsure which one to pick.

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?

'Public, no key' conveys an access prerequisite, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer 'plans' or 'smart_coverage' instead, so selection is left to inference.

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