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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's remaining burden is the payload, which it handles well: it enumerates the returned consensus/delta, volume/fills, positioner counts, and top holders. It does not say what happens for an unknown or malformed market identifier, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor omission.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary output (consensus vs mid) and followed by secondary payload fields and accepted identifiers. Dense but every clause carries information, with only slight jargon cost in 'Polyrank-vs-mid delta'.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is computed, what else is returned, and how the market is identified. The missing piece is any routing guidance among the many sibling analytics tools.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'conditionId (0x + 64 hex) or market slug'. The description restates the same identifier formats without adding resolution behavior, precedence, or error handling, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and payload: skill-weighted holder consensus versus the market mid, plus 24h volume/fills, positioner counts, and top holders. That is distinguishable from siblings like polyrank_get_leaderboard or polyrank_get_smart_money_report, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions (e.g. polyrank_get_pulse or polyrank_get_smart_money_report). The only contextual cue is the data it returns, which implies usage rather than stating it.

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