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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the ranking context (profit/volume/window) but no additional behavioral details such as default limit, ordering, or pagination. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single 10-word sentence that front-loads the resource and ranking criteria. There is zero filler and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with full parameter documentation and helpful annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows what the tool returns and can infer the call shape. No output schema exists, but the return value is self-evident from the description.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, metric, window) fully documented. The description's mention of 'profit or volume over a window' reinforces the role of metric and window but adds little beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns top Polymarket traders ranked by profit or volume over a window. It specifies a clear resource and the two dimensions of ranking, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_price_history. The title reinforces the verb-resource pairing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tools are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool's obvious purpose, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. This falls short of the standard set by the get_calls example.

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