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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: caching at KV level with 1h TTL keyed on knobs, excluded Fed bets with reasoning, a 24h-move warning when recent price changes exceed the edge, and detailed diagnostics to explain empty segments. It also explains that edge is net of slippage and that Kelly fractions are capped at 0.25, going well beyond the annotations.

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 long but extremely information-dense, organized into clear sections: purpose, model families, response structure, knobs, and caching. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex tool with no output schema. The use of capitalization and colons makes it scannable without sacrificing completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, multi-segment responses), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the three model families, response top-level structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), why segments might be empty, and the caching behavior. It even covers exclusion of Fed bets due to unreliable signals. The presence of diagnostics addresses the common agent frustration of empty results with no explanation. This is exceptionally thorough.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters under 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and explaining their collective purpose (e.g., min_liquidity/max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable, min_partition_leg_kelly overrides min_kelly for partitions). This helps the agent understand how to reason about the knobs together, slightly elevating above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (which focuses on arbitrage between markets) and polymarket_edge_tracker (which tracks edges over time). The stated use case is targeted and actionable.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' and explains that agents avoid paging hundreds of markets. It also describes the tuning knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) and caching behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if you need historical edge tracking), leaving a minor gap.

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