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

Goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing behavioral traits: it only performs a risk check, does not execute trades, walks the order book ladder, and reports verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill). Warns about thin books and forced directional risk. 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 dense and lengthy but well-structured with section headers (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). Every sentence serves a purpose, though breaking into shorter paragraphs could improve readability slightly. Still acceptable given information density.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and basket-specific fields (theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). No missing information for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains side default logic in basket mode ('auto from partition sum'), interprets size_usd as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells,' and notes clamp range (10–1,000,000). This adds value beyond 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 it performs an 'edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' for both single-market and basket modes, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool before those.

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 usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains the two modes (single-market vs basket), required parameters per mode, and warns about risks like partial basket fills converting arb to directional position.

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