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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields, which is good, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. For a query tool, the absence of parameter discussion is a notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output spec. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description lists the output fields, helping with output understanding since there is no output schema. However, it omits the limit parameter and does not fully explain the context for using this tool versus siblings. The mention of 'edge-family research' provides some context, but it is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% because the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter is optional but its purpose and usage are completely undocumented. The description should at least indicate that limit controls the number of results.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Polymarket wallets', and specifies the metrics returned (copyability classification, PnL, edge-per-dollar, drawdown, category, volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that PM is structurally near-uncopyable, contrasting with find_copyable_traders.

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 mentions 'useful for edge-family research,' suggesting usage context. It also hints at differentiation from find_copyable_traders by stating PM is near-uncopyable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, leaving some gaps.

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