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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds extensive behavioral detail by stating it walks the order-book ladder, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and interprets size_usd differently for buys, sells, and basket mode. It also discloses the risk of partial basket fills and forced_directional_risk, going well beyond safety hints.

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 every sentence is information-dense; the first sentence gives the core purpose, the two modes are clearly delimited by SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET labels, and the closing usage guidance is imperative and actionable. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates all key return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.) and explains the central risk concept of unhedged positions from partial fills. It falls just short of defining every return field precisely, but covers the essential semantics.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds contextual meaning by linking each parameter to return behavior: side options for both modes, size_usd as max spend vs target proceeds, and basket size as settlement notional. This enriches the schema's terse definitions, though it does not introduce entirely new parameter semantics.

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 first sentence states it is a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' naming a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as a pre-trade risk check for polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, and it clearly describes both single-market and basket modes.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500,' and explains the rationale: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable and partial fills create unhedged positions. It also differentiates when to use single-market vs basket mode.

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