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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by detailing behavioral traits: walks the ladder, returns specific outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and crucially warns of forced directional risk from partial basket fills—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 comprehensive and structured with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, warnings), but it is quite lengthy. While every sentence adds value, a slightly more condensed version could improve scanability. Still, it earns a 4 for being well-organized and front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully details return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc., plus per-leg detail and risk indicators). It also explains the risk of partial fills and forced directional risk. The description leaves no gaps about what the tool returns or when to use it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value: explains side default logic for basket mode ('auto from partition sum'), clarifies size_usd interpretation for basket ('settlement notional S—shares per leg'), and defines modes. The description makes all parameters' semantics crystal clear beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, telling the agent to use this tool before those. The verb 'check' and resource 'fill risk' are specific and non-tautological.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable, partial basket fills convert arb into directional position). It also mandates parameter selection: 'REQUIRES one of market or event.' This fully informs the agent on context and alternatives.

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