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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses pagination behavior (max 25 pages × 1000 trades), the nature of filters (client-side), and the exact return fields (wallet, side, price, notional, etc.). This exceeds the minimum but could be enhanced by noting any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 four sentences with high information density and zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists filters, pagination, and return format in a logical order. Every sentence contributes substantive information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, how filtering works, and how pagination behaves. It lacks explicit guidance on whether id or slug is required, but the schema covers parameter semantics. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters into time range, side, size, and wallet, and by explaining pagination semantics (pages of 1000, max pages) that are not fully captured in the schema. This gives the agent a clearer mental model of how the parameters interact.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Raw trade access for a Polymarket market via the Polymarket Data API', identifying a specific verb ('access') and resource ('trade data for a market'). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on market details, wallet risk, or integrity scans.

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 implies use for raw trade retrieval by listing supported filters and pagination details. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, the specification of 'client-side filters' and 'server-side pagination' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus a more curated market data tool.

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