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

The description discloses that the tool surfaces resting-order concentration and that minSize tunes the threshold, which is useful behavioral context. No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does not mention output shape, defaults, authentication, or side effects—though the tool appears read-only by nature.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: defining the concept, noting the tunable threshold, and routing to sibling tools. The em-dash definition is compact and no words are wasted.

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 simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of return-value and token-identification guidance leaves an agent to guess at the result shape and accepted token form. This is adequate for tool selection but not fully self-sufficient for reliable invocation with unclear or missing minSize/token values.

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 descriptions are tautological ('Token to process', 'MinSize to process'), so the prose adds the only real semantics by explaining that minSize tunes the threshold. It does not clarify token format, minSize units or interpretation, or whether either parameter has a meaningful default, so it only partially compensates for the schema's vagueness.

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 the output in the first sentence: 'largest resting price clusters in a Polymarket order book' and explains their significance ('where a move tends to stall'). It also names and characterizes the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish this from the raw book and cumulative depth variants. The lack of an explicit verb is minor because the noun phrase clearly defines the resource and result.

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?

Names the alternatives x402-poly-clob and x402-poly-depth with parenthetical glosses, giving the agent a clear contextual map of how this tool fits among siblings. It does not spell out 'use this when you need walls rather than raw book or cumulative depth,' so the guidance is contextual rather than a formal exclusion list.

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