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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and adds little beyond the implied read-only nature of 'List'. It doesn't disclose whether resolved or zero-balance positions are returned, whether values are USD-denominated, pagination limits, or any auth/permission requirements on the wallet id.

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 short sentences, resource and scope front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence ('walletId is required') largely duplicates the schema's required array, so it isn't fully earning its place.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool, so not much is needed, but with no output schema the description should sketch what a returned position contains (market, outcome, size, value). It also leaves the relationship to the adjacent propose_polymarket_buy/sell/redeem flow unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents walletId as a FortFi Polygon wallet id. The description only restates that it is required, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup detail (e.g., how to obtain a walletId via list_wallets). 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?

Names a specific verb (List) plus a specific resource (Polymarket outcome token positions) and scopes it to a Polygon wallet, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_hyperliquid_positions and list_yield_positions. It doesn't explicitly say what it is not, but the resource name does the differentiation work.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It doesn't tell an agent whether to prefer this over get_portfolio, get_account_holdings, or list_wallets for Polymarket exposure, nor whether it covers only open positions or resolved/closed ones. The only directive is the mandatory-parameter restatement.

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