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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about whether this is a batch operation, any rate limits, or what happens when token_ids is omitted or exceeds 25. With annotations covering safety, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 four-word fragment with no editorial waste, so it is concise by default. However, it is under-specified rather than front-loaded with value, earning only a minimum-viable score.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description is still inadequate: it does not clarify the batch-vs-single distinction against polymorphic siblings, nor how the tool behaves when token_ids is omitted (required=0 in schema but described as required in the param). For a tool in a dense sibling cluster, this leaves key selection questions unanswered.

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% (the single token_ids parameter is documented with required status and a max-25 constraint), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Polymarket token midpoints' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no verb or clarifying action. While it identifies the resource (Polymarket token midpoints), it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like polymarket_token_midpoint or polymarket_tokens_prices. This is tautological rather than informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as polymarket_token_midpoint (singular) and polymarket_tokens_spreads, the description gives no indication of when the batch midpoint call is appropriate. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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