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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the heuristic logic (comparing volumes, z-like ratio) and the flagging condition. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any potential side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 packs in the purpose and heuristic details without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary function and structured clearly with a colon and conjunction.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core algorithm but does not explain how parameters are used or what the output looks like. It also lacks context about the meaning of 'on-book liquidity' or the expected result format, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 defines 'id' and 'slug', but the description does not mention either parameter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining how parameters identify the market or affect the heuristic, but it is completely silent. This leaves the agent with no guidance on what to provide.

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 what the tool does: it compares 24h volume to average daily volume since market start and flags thin-book situations. It uses specific verbs ('compares', 'flags') and identifies the resource (market volume) and the heuristic approach (z-like ratio), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_kalshi_thin_market_alert.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use case, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. It only describes the tool's behavior without any context for selection.

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