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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on how many tokens can be batched (the schema covers 25), no mention of whether prices are live/last-trade/mid, and no indication of response shape or update cadence.

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?

Three words is concise but under-specified, not informative conciseness. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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 with a single vague sentence and a dense plural-token family of siblings, the definition leaves the agent unable to distinguish this tool from polymarket_token_price or know its scope. More is needed for a 2-param batch price lookup.

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%, and the schema documents the side enum, token_ids as required, and the 25-token limit. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 prices' restates the tool name (polymarket_tokens_prices) almost verbatim, giving only the resource without a verb or scope. Siblings like polymarket_token_price (singular) and polymarket_token_price_history exist, and the description does not clarify whether this returns current prices for multiple tokens versus a single token's price.

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 on when to use this tool versus polymarket_token_price, token_midpoint, token_spread, or the tokens_* plural variants. The agent must infer from the name that the plural form takes a batch of token ids.

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