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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail – sorting by most recent first and including dates – which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't discuss pagination, limits, or output shape, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource (

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety traits. The description supplies the domain context and ordering. It is nearly complete for a no-arg, read-only listing tool; only explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics and notes the sort order and date inclusion, which is the only relevant invocation detail.

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 clearly what the tool returns: market predictions from Strategy Arena where AIs vote on markets, with shadow betting P&L. It's a specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like live_match or get_public_proofs, which involve prediction-adjacent concepts.

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 describes the content but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and doesn't mention alternatives among the many siblings. An agent must infer that this is the retrieval tool for stored predictions versus live_match for real-time action.

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