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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing strong safety signals. The description adds that it retrieves 'balance/allowance' but does not elaborate on behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'allowance'. The description does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description could provide a bit more context about what 'allowance' refers to in the Polymarket context, though the schema partially covers this. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'asset_type' fully described via enum values and a descriptive text. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

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?

The description 'Get balance/allowance on Polymarket' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('balance/allowance') and platform ('Polymarket'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other Polymarket tools that deal with market data or trading operations.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention any exclusions or alternatives. However, given its simplicity and the lack of closely related sibling tools for account balance, it is minimally adequate. No guidance is provided for when not to use it.

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