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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output format (decision, risk level, signed receipt), the aggregated data sources (orderbook, resolution-window, conflict-of-interest, insider scan), platform support, and the x402 paywall interaction. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any data is persisted, but 'pre-trade integrity gate' strongly implies a non-executing check. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond basic read/write status.

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 dense but every sentence contributes new information. It front-loads the core purpose and output, then details aggregation, platform support, optional inputs, and the paywall design. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a complex aggregator with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the decision output, risk scale, signed receipt, and the role of each optional input. It does not specify exact thresholds for ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK or verify the receipt format, but those are edge details that might be covered by the API or documentation. Overall, it gives an agent sufficient context to 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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema, but the description enriches their semantics by explaining optional inputs: wallet for Polymarket-side checks, candidate name for Kalshi Rule 5.17(z) name matching, and amount_usd to amplify risk on thin markets. This provides rationale for when and why to pass these parameters, adding value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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's function: a pre-trade integrity gate that returns an ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK decision, risk level, and signed receipt. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly aggregating orderbook analysis, resolution-window risk, CFTC conflict-of-interest checks, and insider signal scans, making it a comprehensive gate rather than a single check.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Designed for x402 paywall pre-trade calls — agent pays once, gets binary go/no-go.' This implies when to use it (before trade execution) and hints at the alternative of using individual sibling tools, though it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of those.' No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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