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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is unprocessed exchange-native data and that a token id is required from a specific upstream tool. However, it omits rate limits, payment/auth requirements typical of an x402 endpoint, pagination or depth capping, and empty-book behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose and raw-output nature come first, the required input source and alternatives follow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must do more. It nails purpose, sourcing, and sibling routing, but leaves the asset/token parameter distinction and the response/error behavior unstated.

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 0% with two params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies where the token id comes from, but never explains the 'asset' parameter or how it relates to 'token', leaving one of two parameters ambiguous in both schema and prose.

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+resource: the raw Polymarket CLOB order book for one outcome token, including 'every resting bid and ask exactly as the exchange returns it'. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is NOT (x402-poly-depth, x402-poly-walls, x402-poly-signals), so an agent can distinguish raw versus derived views without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('Needs a token id from x402-poly-markets or x402-polymarket') and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for derived views, listing three alternatives with the characteristic that selects each (cumulative, large clusters, touch). This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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