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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them by spelling out auth requirements: no user token, wallet signature, cookies, or personal account authentication, plus that it is not a trading endpoint. It stops short of describing rate limits, caching, or behavior when token ids are unavailable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the what and then the auth clarification. The auth list is somewhat repetitive but each clause adds a distinct guarantee, and the routing sentence is placed last appropriately.

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, and auth behavior is fully covered. The only residual gap is guidance on choosing among the three optional lookup parameters, which is minor for a read-only snapshot tool.

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%, so the schema documents id, slug, and condition_id. The description adds essentially nothing about how to select among these three optional identifiers or which is preferred, so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a public market liquidity snapshot') and explains what it composes ('joins Gamma market detail with credential-free public CLOB market-data reads'). This distinguishes it from generic market detail, though it does not differentiate against sibling liquidity/orderbook tools like polymarket_clob_market or polymarket_token_orderbook.

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?

Names one alternative ('Use polymarket_market_detail to get Polymarket market detail by id') and clarifies this is not a trading endpoint, which is implied usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition against the many polymarket_* pricing/orderbook siblings, leaving the choice largely to inference.

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