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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds risk-relevant behavior: it walks the order-book ladder, computes VWAP fill and slippage, flags thin legs, and warns about forced directional risk. It reveals potential for partial fills and the dominant loss mode.

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 highly structured with explicit REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, and USE THIS sections. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds specific operational detail rather than padding. Could be considered dense, but it earns its length for a complex tool.

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 the description carries full burden for return values — it enumerates all key fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, per-leg fill detail, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.). It also covers both modes, defaults, clamps, and practical risk guidance, making it complete for selection and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: for buys, size_usd is 'max spend'; for sells, 'target proceeds'; basket size is 'settlement notional S (shares per leg)' and side defaults are computed from partition sum. This goes beyond parameter names to clarify interpreted semantics.

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 precise purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It names sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) and explicitly positions itself as the pre-trade risk check, distinguishing it from those arbitrage-detection tools.

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?

It 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 the failure mode (partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position) and differentiates single-market vs basket modes with clear requirements.

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