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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: walks the order-book ladder, returns top_of_book/vwap/slippage, detects thin legs and forced directional risk, and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged position. No contradiction; it extends the 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?

Long but information-dense; starts with core purpose then details. Every sentence adds necessary context for two complex modes, though the wall-of-text formatting could be improved with structure. Score 4 for slightly dense structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values—it enumerates all key outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). It also addresses edge cases (partial fills, thin books) and directs to sibling tools. Fully complete for a complex tool.

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 covers all 4 params with 100% coverage, but description adds meaning: clarifies size_usd as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market and 'settlement notional' in basket mode; explains side default logic per mode. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 and basket) and references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) as usage triggers, making its niche explicit.

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 states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround on thin books not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk), which serves as exclusion criteria.

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