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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only data retrieval operation, which is reasonable, but it does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, possible staleness, or error behavior. It does add useful context about the scope (top-of-book, one-sided flag) that supports correct interpretation.

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, first delivers the core purpose and output list, second routes to the alternative tool. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return values and the distinction from the sibling. It does not explain how to format the token (address vs. symbol) or specify that the parameter is technically optional, but those are schema concerns. Overall, the description gives sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema covers the only parameter with a vague description ('Token to process'). The description adds meaning by specifying that 'token' refers to a Polymarket outcome token, which clarifies the parameter's domain and distinguishes it from generic token concepts. This is a meaningful addition beyond the 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?

The description states a specific action ('touch for one Polymarket outcome token') and enumerates exact outputs (best bid, best ask, midpoint, spread, one-sided flag). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling x402-poly-clob by contrast, so an agent can identify which tool to use.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative x402-poly-clob and gives the condition that selects it ('when you need the full book rather than the top of it'). This clearly guides the agent on when not to use this tool.

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