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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: caching at the KV level for 1 hour keyed on all knobs, the three response segments with model details, the per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction, the placeholder-slug filter, the rare-by-design nature of concentrated longshots, and the fed candidates exclusion. It also explains the 24h-move warning and diagnostics so callers understand why segments may be empty.

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 well-structured with typographic sections (FIVE MODEL FAMILIES, TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS, RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL, _diagnostics). It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every major section adds necessary detail for a tool with no output schema. It is dense but not bloated, though the 'FIVE MODEL FAMILIES' statement appears inconsistent with the three families explicitly listed.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure: by_segment with model_driven, structural_arbitrage, concentrated_longshot; fed_candidates/fed_note; and _diagnostics. It details the fields carried on each opportunity (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, liquidity, spread_pp, volume), the 24h-move warning, and why segments might be empty. It also covers caching behavior. This is highly complete given the tool's complexity.

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 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining relationships between knobs, e.g., min_partition_leg_kelly specifically applies to partition_overround legs and that min_kelly does not filter partition arbs because parent-level kelly_fraction_half is 0 by design. This clarifies cross-parameter behavior not obvious from the schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker by emphasizing the Pipeworx data comparison and the 'what should I bet on today' use case.

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: 'Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets.' It also explains how knobs tailor output, such as min_liquidity and max_spread_pp to drop unrealizable edges. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use this tool versus siblings like polymarket_arbitrage.

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