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

Description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: basket mode walks every leg, returns thin_legs and forced_directional_risk, warns about partial fills causing unhedged positions. Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical context about potential risks and outputs.

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 well-structured with clear headings for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET modes, using bold for key terms. It is verbose but every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly more concise by reducing repeated explanations, but overall effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description exhaustively details return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs for basket). It also explains the context of when this tool is needed, making it self-contained.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how 'side' and 'size_usd' are interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode, and includes a clamp (10–1,000,000) not in the schema schema. It also clarifies default behaviors (e.g., auto side for basket).

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 states the tool performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between two modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying this is a risk check to be used before acting on their signals.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position) and implies when not to use (small trades below $500).

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