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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the turnover calculation, that the tool shows round-trip cost, and how filtering changes the output. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or data-only nature, the terms 'screen', 'reports', and 'ranks' make that behavior clear enough. It adds useful context beyond an annotation would, covering the rich text, so it deserve a high score.

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 three sentences and efficient, each adds necessary context: the first sentence states the function and the second the filters, and the third gives the sibling distinction. It is slightly dense with several ideas, but it's practical and avoids decorative. It might be a bit long, but it's still compact and the structure.

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?

The tool is a screened data tool with no output schema and three optional parameters. The description has enough context for a purpose: what when, what, and the provided filters. It provides the input schema, and what is clear. Some of the interaction. But it doesn't need to explain a return form, but not to the wording. The brief enough to explore the developer.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the schema itself is generic descriptions like 'limit to process' and parameter names. The tool description adds meaning by saying to use minVolumeUsd and maxSpreadBps to get only markets worth trading, and the user focuses on volume and spread. This helps an agent understand how to use the parameters beyond the simple schema. It is 3 (baseline) with a plus because the description explains the scope of metadata.

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's purpose: a Polymarket activity screen that ranks markets by turnover (24h volume divided by resting liquidity) and reports the round-trip cost. This names both the verb and resource with a concrete metric formula. It also directly distinguishes itself from x402-poly-markets, removing ambiguity about which sibling to choose.

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 explicitly says to use x402-poly-markets for a plain list and to use this tool when the question is 'where is there real activity I can actually participate in'. It additionally explains that the filter parameters minVolumeUsd and maxSpreadBps should be used to get only markets worth trading, providing strong guidance on when to invoke it.

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