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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does describe the computation semantics: walking outward from the touch, cumulative depth, and how much size is needed to move price. It does not mention read-only behavior, token identifier requirements, or response details, but the core behavioral concept is clearly conveyed.

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?

The description is two front-loaded sentences: the first defines the metric, the second locates it among siblings. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core concept and disambiguates from siblings. But it leaves material gaps: how the token is identified, whether it is required, and what the returned depth data looks like. The tool's low complexity keeps this from scoring lower.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema's 'Token to process' is vague, and the description adds that the token is a single Polymarket outcome token. However, it does not specify the expected token identifier format, and the schema lists no required parameters even though the description implies the token is necessary.

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 states a precise verb-resource pairing: 'Cumulative Polymarket order-book depth for one outcome token, walking outward from the touch — how much size it takes to move the price.' It also distinguishes itself from x402-poly-walls, which shows 'the largest individual price clusters instead.' This is specific enough for an agent to separate it from the large sibling list.

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?

The description names two relevant siblings, x402-poly-clob and x402-poly-walls, and explains the key contrast with walls, giving an implicit selection rule. It lacks an explicit 'use this when... / use walls when...' formulation, so it stops short of a 5.

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