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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) already indicate safety, but the description adds critical behavioral context: walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap, slippage, etc.), and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into unhedged directional risk—the dominant loss mode. 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?

The description is long due to complexity, but every sentence is information-dense and earned. It front-loads purpose and requirements, and logically separates modes. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet lists), but remains clear and efficient.

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 high complexity and no output schema, the description exhaustively lists return fields for both modes: top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict for single; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk for basket. This fully informs the agent about expected 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the semantics of size_usd in basket mode ('settlement notional — shares per leg') and explaining the auto-default for side. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and explains two modes (single-market and basket). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by advising 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: before acting on arb signals or trades above $500. Explains why partial fills cause directional risk and that theoretical overround is not capturable on thin books. Lacks exclusions for cases where the tool is not needed, but the threshold and signal context give clear guidance.

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