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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds real conceptual detail (cumulative depth walking outward from the touch, same book as x402-poly-clob), but says nothing about whether this is a read-only fetch, payment/auth requirements (x402 tools typically require payment), latency, or the shape of what comes back.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the sibling comparisons. Every clause contributes; the em-dash gloss on the metric is useful rather than 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at the return shape (e.g., depth by price level) but doesn't. For a data-retrieval tool with one undocumented parameter and no annotations, the conceptual framing is good but the invocation/return picture is incomplete.

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 0% for the single 'token' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is 'one outcome token' from Polymarket, which disambiguates from a generic asset token, but gives no format or example (e.g., CLOB token ID vs market slug). Partial compensation only.

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: cumulative Polymarket order-book depth for one outcome token, and explains the mechanics ('how much size it takes to move the price'). It explicitly contrasts itself with x402-poly-clob (same book) and x402-poly-walls (individual clusters), so the agent can place it among 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?

The closing sentence routes the agent: this tool for cumulative depth, x402-poly-walls for largest individual price clusters, and notes it is built from the same book as x402-poly-clob. Clear context for selection, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need X, not Y' formulation.

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