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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the full set of returned statistics, which is the main behavioral fact for a read-only history tool. It does not discuss provenance of the time series, resolution/fidelity behavior, or failure modes when the token is unknown, so it stops short of complete.

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 resource and the returned fields, followed by the differentiation claim. The second sentence is partly promotional ('this is the only one') but it does real work by establishing positioning against siblings.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the return shape but leaves parameter semantics and usage prerequisites entirely unexplained. It is adequate for deciding whether to call the tool, not for calling it correctly.

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% across six parameters (limit, token, market, tokenId, fidelity, interval), and the description explains none of them — not the token-vs-tokenId-vs-market distinction, not interval/fidelity formats, not what limit bounds. Calling this correctly requires guesswork, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — price time series for a Polymarket outcome token — and enumerates exactly what it computes (first/last price, change, high, low, average, direction, volatility). An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling Polymarket tools (poly-clob, poly-price, poly-depth, polymarket-odds) without opening the 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?

Explicitly contrasts this tool with the other Polymarket services that return book snapshots and names the decision contexts that select it (momentum, mean-reversion). It gives clear when-to-use guidance but never names the competing siblings directly, so routing still requires recognizing which services are 'snapshot' tools.

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