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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the raw, unprocessed nature ('exactly as the exchange returns it'), which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, error behavior, or whether it is strictly read-only (implied but not stated). This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and alternative tools. Each clause earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and dependency on token id. However, it does not clarify the distinction between asset and token, nor does it describe the expected return structure beyond 'every resting bid and ask'. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds that the token id comes from x402-poly-markets or x402-polymarket, which clarifies the token parameter. However, it does not explain the 'asset' parameter at all, leaving ambiguity about how it differs from token. The description only partially compensates for the vague schema descriptions.

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 the raw Polymarket CLOB order book for a single outcome token, with every resting bid and ask exactly as the exchange returns it. It distinguishes itself from derived views (depth, walls, signals) by explicitly contrasting with them, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: a token id from x402-poly-markets or x402-polymarket. It also names specific alternatives (x402-poly-depth, x402-poly-walls, x402-poly-signals) and when to use them, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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