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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses freshness ('Refreshed every collector batch'), provenance ('derived, attributed'), and a paid access model via x402 with the exact price and the unpaid-call challenge/retry behavior. It stops short of describing row ordering guarantees or failure modes beyond payment.

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 resource and fields, then usage, then behavioral details. The only waste is the payment cost being stated twice ('$0.005 per call' in prose and again in the bracketed payment note), which is mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned columns, plus freshness, provenance, and payment requirements. An agent could invoke it correctly from this text; only ordering/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (q, limit) are already documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The phrase 'scan for a specific question' loosely signals the filter, but it is baseline-level value given the schema does the work.

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 ('Normalized Polymarket odds snapshot') and enumerates the row fields (question, yes/no prices, implied probability, 24h volume, liquidity), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the polymarket siblings (disagreement, package), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 concrete use cases: check whether a market moved after news, rank the busiest markets, or scan for a specific question. However, it never says when to prefer a sibling like curade_polymarket_disagreement or curade_polymarket_package, and offers no exclusions.

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