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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns fully. It adds rich behavioral context: what checks are performed, what return fields to expect (e.g., verdict, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and the risks involved. No contradiction with 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?

Description is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy; however, it is well-structured with clear section headers (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a minor trim could improve conciseness.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, captures ratio, thin_legs, etc.) and explains edge cases (partial fills, straddle risk). It covers all necessary information for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning beyond schema: explains how side defaults are determined per mode, how size_usd is interpreted (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and the mutual exclusivity of market vs event. This elevates usability beyond 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?

Clearly states it performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. Distinctly separates single-market and basket modes and explicitly tells when to use it (before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500), differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool and when not to, including a concrete threshold (~$500) and reference to sibling tools. Explains the consequences of not using it (partial basket fills leading to unhedged directional positions). Provides mode selection criteria.

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