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

The description details internal behavior: it walks the order book ladder, computes top-of-book vs VWAP, identifies thin legs and forced directional risk, and explains partial fill consequences. Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds depth beyond those without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, REQUIRES clause, mode-specific details, and a use-case directive. Every sentence contributes novel information, and the structure (SINGLE-MARKET vs BASKET) makes it scannable.

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 fully enumerates return fields per mode (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, etc.), covers both modes, parameter interpretation, and the rationale for using the tool. This is complete for a tool of this 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?

Although the schema covers all 4 parameters, the description adds crucial interpretation, especially for size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds in single-market, settlement notional in basket) and side (default auto in basket). This enriches the schema meaningfully.

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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' clearly stating the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explicitly referencing them as the tools to precede this one, and details both single-market and basket modes with specific return values.

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?

It explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position. This provides clear when-to-use context and distinct guidance versus alternatives.

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