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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the cost ($0.01), the single-venue scope ('One venue'), the read-only live nature ('read live'), and enumerates returned signals (bid/ask, spread, liquidity, volume windows, time-to-resolution, deterministic 0-100 score with named flags). It stops short of stating rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens when no markets match.

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 and price in the first clause, then the return payload, then the use case. The middle enumeration of output fields is long and slightly dense, but each item is real signal rather than filler, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 correctly spells out the return contents in detail, and it adds cost and venue-scope context. It is nearly complete for a 2-param read tool; the only gaps are failure/empty-result behavior and how limit interacts with ranking.

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 100%, so both q and limit are already fully documented with examples and a default/range. The description adds nothing the schema does not already say about parameters (the 'venue's own wording' hint duplicates the q schema text). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (prediction-market odds and implied probability) with a named venue (Polymarket) and the exact output shape. The distinction from sibling prediction_scan is implicit via 'live Polymarket markets that match' versus a scanning tool, and no other sibling deals in market odds at all.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'when you need the market-implied probability of an event - an election, a Fed decision, a match, a price level - rather than a headline opinion.' The contrast with opinion/headline tools (e.g. search_web) is useful, but no sibling is named as an alternative or exclusion, and no prerequisites or limits-on-use are stated.

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