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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations, such as walking the ladder, returning a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and explaining that partial basket fills lead to unhedged directional positions. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable context about output fields and risk flags.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, then separating single-market and basket modes with bold headers, and concluding with use-case guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly documents return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also explains the dominant loss mode from partial fills, making the tool complete for its intended 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 significant meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining that size_usd for basket is 'settlement notional S (shares per leg; each share pays $1),' and clarifying side defaults in basket mode. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 it is a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It explicitly distinguishes two modes: single-market and basket/partition, and the verb 'check' with the resource 'order-book depth' is specific. It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by being a pre-trade risk assessment.

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 states when to use the tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the consequence of not using it (partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position), providing clear context for when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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