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

The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond the annotations: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps mean no scan, history is bounded by a 60-day TTL, decay is computed from daily closes not intraday, and edge_pp_net is signed by trade direction with negative values representing SELL YES. These details significantly enhance an agent's understanding of data freshness and interpretation.

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 dense with necessary information about parameters, response structure, and limitations. It is organized with 'Args:' and 'RESPONSE:' labels, making it scannable despite the length. Every sentence contributes value, though it could benefit from bullet points for even clearer separation of concepts.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure: tracked[] with time-series and trends, expired[] with lifespan, and snapshot_dates[] with caveats about gaps. It also covers edge cases like missing snapshots and history depth limits, making the description complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the default for days and window and adds the phrase 'snapshot family' for window, but this adds limited meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter semantics are needed given the thorough 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 defines the tool as 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It also contrasts fresh vs. old wide edges, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

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 provides clear context: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades', implying the tool is used to assess edge durability before trading. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the focus on snapshot persistence over time makes the intended use clear relative to other Polymarket tools.

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