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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the output (price series and statistics) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or edge cases like missing parameters. While the read-only nature is implied by 'price time series', it is not explicit, and no constraints are disclosed, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core functionality front-loaded. The first sentence directly states what the tool does; the second adds context on why it is distinct. The marketing phrase 'which is what a momentum or mean-reversion decision actually needs' is slightly superfluous but does not detract significantly from clarity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (time series and statistics). However, it fails to address how to use the input parameters: no guidance on which parameters are required or how they interact. With six optional parameters and no explanation, an agent cannot confidently construct a valid request. The description covers output but not input selection, leaving a significant gap.

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?

The description does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, token, market, tokenId, fidelity, interval). The schema descriptions are trivial ('Token to process', 'Limit to process'), providing no meaningful guidance. The description should clarify how to specify the target token (e.g., token vs market vs tokenId) and what limit and interval mean, but it remains silent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a price time series with trend statistics for a Polymarket outcome token, enumerating the specific statistics (first/last price, change, high, low, average, direction, volatility). It also distinguishes itself from sibling services by noting it is the only one providing historical odds rather than a book snapshot, making its 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when a momentum or mean-reversion decision requires historical price trends. It contrasts with existing Polymarket services that give snapshots, implying these are alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name specific alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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