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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read semantics (GET /v1/board), the cost model ($0.04 via x402), and a docs URL, which are genuinely useful. It does not, however, say anything about rate limits, caching/freshness of the 'live' probabilities, or what happens when limit is applied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core scope in the first sentence, followed by what the board contains. The bracketed HTTP/price/docs metadata is compact. Three sentences plus metadata, no filler.

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 simple bulk-read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers scope, content, and access mechanics. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter.

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 0% and the single required 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description; only 'top markets by volume' hints at a bounded set. The parameter name, default (20) and max (50) make it largely self-explanatory in the schema, so this is an acceptable but not compensating level.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('all active economics markets', 'one-call board of the most active economics prediction markets') and enumerates the return content (volume, blended live probabilities, resolution dates, slugs). It is clear what it does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent siblings probability_board_delta, probability_board_changes, or probability_movers_economics.

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?

'The bulk read for agents tracking the state of economics at a glance' implies when to reach for it (a snapshot overview), but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no alternatives are named. The delta/changes/movers siblings are the natural alternatives and go unmentioned.

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