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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it discloses that this is a read/bulk operation and describes the returned fields and the x402 payment ($0.04). However it omits permissions/auth detail, rate limits, and staleness/latency behavior that an unannotated tool should surface.

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 purpose first, then payload detail, then usage, followed by a compact technical footer with endpoint, price, and docs URL. Minor redundancy in repeating the 'one call' idea ('in one call' / 'One-call board'), but no wasted space.

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 appropriately specifies the return contents (metrics, dates, slugs for drill-down), and it conveys the read/bulk nature. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which leaves invocation detail incomplete for a required argument.

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?

The single 'limit' parameter, which is required with a default of 20 and max of 50, is never mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining count semantics, so the agent must infer that limit controls the number of top markets returned.

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 specific verb and resource (active Federal Reserve prediction markets with live probabilities) and details the payload (top markets by volume, blended probabilities, resolution dates, slugs). It is clearly distinct from the *_calendar_* and *_movers_* siblings by the 'board' scope, but never names a sibling to make the boundary 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?

'The bulk read for agents tracking the state of Federal Reserve at a glance' gives a clear use case and distinguishes it as a bulk/snapshot read. It offers no exclusions and never names alternatives like probability_calendar_fed or probability_movers_fed, so the guidance stops at context rather than routing.

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