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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic filters, no LLM/free text, a 500-candidate ranking cap, cost per call paid via USDC/x402, and the output fields. It also adds a 'not advice' disclaimer Offerring more transparency than a mere 'returns a list' statement.

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 single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses semicolons to separate filter groups, output columns, and constraints. It is information-dense without being verbose, but the long run-on structure could be slightly more scannable for an agent.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, lists the returned fields, sets expectations about candidate limits, and mentions pricing and payment method. It lacks example inputs or error handling details, but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the 'category' requirement (event tag with at least 200 resolved markets), the 'movers' behavior (sort by 7-day change), and the overall set of output columns. This adds meaningful context for parameter selection.

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 tool returns a ranked list of Polymarket markets under deterministic filtershol with specific sort and filter options. It names the resource (Polymarket markets) and the action (screener ranking), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like claim_check or resolution_check, which are different in function.

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 implies use for deterministic market screening with filtersable and sorted output, and notes 'No LLM, no free text' to signal a non-AI interpretation tool. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this screener is the right choice.

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