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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional context is met abundantly. The description discloses operational behavior: walks the order book ladder, returns VWAP and slippage, computes theoretical vs realizable sums, and names 'forced_directional_risk.' It also warns about partial basket fills creating unhedged directional exposure—valuable beyond annotation hints. No contradiction exists.

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 carries critical detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses ALL-CAPS section labels (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) to make scanning easier, and avoids filler. It slightly loses a point for density—an agent might need to parse carefully—but it is not redundant.

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 enumerates all key return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also covers both modes comprehensively, explains the auto default for side in basket mode, and includes safety thresholds. This is remarkably complete for a tool with two operational contexts.

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: it explains how 'side' behaves differently in single-market vs basket modes, how size_usd is interpreted as spend, target proceeds, or settlement notional, and mentions defaults and clamping. For instance, it clarifies 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells'—a distinction not present in the schema. This turns the parameter descriptions into actionable usage guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes two modes (single-market vs basket) and lists concrete outputs like top_of_book, slippage_pp, and verdict. This sets it apart from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill analysis rather than discovery.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why, citing thin-book overround and the risk of partial fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position. This gives the agent a clear trigger condition and rationale versus alternatives.

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