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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that unresolved markets produce a 404 (rather than an empty result), the per-call price ($0.01 via x402), the HTTP verb/path, and a docs link. It does not cover auth specifics or error modes beyond 404, so it stops short of 5.

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 purpose, followed by returned fields, the 404 caveat, and bracketed transport metadata. Every sentence earns its place; the bracket block is slightly dense but useful for cost/transport context.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (outcome, per-venue settlement, source link, blended probability 24h before resolution) and the not-found behavior, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result correctly.

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 'slug' parameter is never explained in prose. The only hint is the ':slug' in the HTTP path, which conveys essentially nothing about what a valid slug identifies or where to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource and scope: 'Final outcome and settlement details for a resolved market.' This clearly distinguishes it from live-probability siblings like probability_get, since it only applies to already-resolved markets.

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 distinguishes the resolved case from the unresolved case, telling the agent that unresolved markets return 404 with a pointer to the live probability endpoint. It routes the agent implicitly to the live endpoint without naming the exact sibling tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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