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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses accepted input forms (slug, numeric id, keyword), the output fields (every outcome's implied probability, 24h volume, liquidity, end date, CLOB token ids), and hints at search behavior. It doesn't cover edge cases like multiple keyword matches, but for a read-only market lookup this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant detail.

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 an unannotated tool with no output schema and seven optional parameters, the description should more precisely define the parameter contract. It explains the output well and gives good usage routing, but an agent still cannot confidently determine which parameter to populate for slug vs keyword vs numeric id, and 'limit' is never mentioned.

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 ('Q to process', 'Id to process'), so they provide no real meaning. The description adds semantic categories — slug, numeric market id, keyword — but doesn't map them to the seven actual properties, leaving ambiguity around which field represents 'keyword' vs 'numeric id' and what 'limit' means.

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 clear verb-resource relationship: fetching current odds for a specific Polymarket market. It also names siblings explicitly, distinguishing itself from x402-poly-markets and x402-polymarket-scan by saying this tool is for when you already know the market.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this once you know which market you mean' and names the alternatives for the earlier discovery step. This is direct and actionable.

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