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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, but it provides meaningful behavioral context: the call is live, results are ranked by volume, and the response bundles a whole event's markets in one call. It also signals cost ('cheapest entry point'). It does not detail limit/minVolume effects or response formatting, so not a perfect 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?

Two sentences, with the core behavior stated first and the routing guidance second. Every phrase adds value; no filler or restatement of obvious schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return shape: events ranked by volume, each containing its markets, and one call covers a topic. The remaining gaps—precise handling of the optional parameters and field-level response details—are minor for a simple two-parameter scan tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to repeat parameter mechanics. It adds the ranking-by-volume context that makes minVolume meaningful, but it does not define exactly how limit or minVolume are expressed or applied.

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 names a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('live Polymarket events ranked by volume'), and clarifies the granularity: whole events with their markets inside, not a single question. This distinguishes it clearly from x402-polymarket-odds without needing to open schemas.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'the cheapest entry point in this family' and gives a concrete workflow: use it to see what is worth looking at, then switch to x402-polymarket-odds for a specific market. This is direct when-to-use guidance plus an alternative named.

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