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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does disclose the exact return payload (every outcome with implied probability, 24h volume, liquidity, end date, CLOB token ids). It also explains the three input modes. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only odds lookup the return-field disclosure is the substantive behavioral content.

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 purpose and return shape, then the routing guidance. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, input modes, and sibling routing — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the ambiguous 7-parameter surface and the unexplained 'limit', which leaves some invocation risk.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains that a slug, a numeric market id, or a keyword can be passed, which covers the conceptual input modes, but it never resolves the aliasing (q/search/question vs id/marketId) or explains 'limit' at all. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('Current odds for a specific Polymarket market') and explicitly names the sibling tools it must not be confused with (x402-poly-markets, x402-polymarket-scan). An agent can pick this tool versus its siblings 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 explicit when-to-use ('once you know which market you mean') and when-not ('use x402-poly-markets or x402-polymarket-scan to find one in the first place'). The routing condition to alternatives is unambiguous.

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