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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully characterizes the nature of the result (clusters, stalling zones) and notes that minSize tunes the threshold, but says nothing about read-only vs mutating, required auth/payment (x402 endpoints are typically paid), rate limits, or behavior when no clusters meet the threshold.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: concept, the one tuning knob, then the sibling disambiguation. No filler, and the routing information is placed last where it does not obscure the core purpose.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition should cover the two parameters' formats and the read-only/payment characteristics. It leaves the 'token' parameter entirely undefined and gives no indication of cost or access requirements for what is presumably a paid data endpoint.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives partial meaning for minSize ('tunes the threshold') but no units, type expectation, or direction of effect, and the 'token' parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent could not infer that it is a Polymarket token/condition identifier.

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 names the specific resource (resting price clusters in a Polymarket order book) and the exact thing returned — the price levels where the most size is stacked. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from x402-poly-clob and x402-poly-depth by describing what those return instead.

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?

It gives the use-case signal ('where a move tends to stall') and names the two sibling alternatives with their distinguishing characteristics (raw book vs cumulative depth), which lets an agent route correctly. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead when…' exclusion, so 4 rather than 5.

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