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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it describes the execution process ('walks the ladder'), the returned data (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, etc.), and warns about 'forced directional risk'. This complements the annotations perfectly with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear section headers (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) for structure. However, it is somewhat verbose with detailed parameter explanations that could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, but length could be trimmed without losing substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, four parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains all input options and return values for both modes, including specific field names like 'capture_ratio', 'profit_usd', 'thin_legs', and 'forced_directional_risk'. There is no missing context needed for correct use.

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 extra value by explaining the default behavior for `side` (single-market vs basket auto), and clarifies that `size_usd` is settlement notional for baskets. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions, earning a 4.

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 defines the tool as a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and specifies two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', making it easy for an agent to know exactly what the tool does and when it is relevant.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (before executing arb signals or edges trades above $500) and explains the consequences of not using it (partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional position). It also clearly states the required parameter condition ('REQUIRES one of market or event'), ensuring correct invocation.

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