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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing fan-out behavior, resolver contract, parent_event extraction, NEWS fallback mechanisms, safety short-circuit statuses, and cancellation-rule parsing. It even quantifies response sizes and warns about blocking routes, providing rich behavioral context not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 exceptionally well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating purpose and subsequent sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.) making navigation easy. Every sentence contributes operational detail, though some redundancy exists (e.g., market input syntax repeated from schema) and the overall length is substantial.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by thoroughly covering return shapes (market, analysis, evidence), resolver confidence and alternatives, parent_event partition data, news fallback fields, safety statuses, and cancellation-rule risk. This is a complete operational picture for a complex tool, enabling an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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%, with the market parameter fully explained in the schema itself. The description reiterates the slug/URL/question-text formats but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Depth and include_raw are also fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no additional value here.

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: "Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call." It further distinguishes the tool by describing the fan-out to category-specific data packs and returning an evidence packet plus market-vs-model comparison, clearly separating it from siblings like validate_claim or polymarket_edges.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: "Use for 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z'." The description also offers conditional guidance like inspecting resolver fields before trusting analysis and checking cancellation rules before sizing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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