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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the available intervals, the fact that trend statistics are precomputed, and the important 24/7 trading nuance for daily candles. It does not describe pagination, output ordering, or whether the current candle is included, but the core behavioral context is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by intervals, use cases, and a noteworthy caveat. The tool-name prefix is mildly redundant, but every other sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 has six unrequired parameters with vague descriptions and no output schema, yet the description never explains how to specify the market or what hours/limit mean. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call because id, symbol, and instrument are all present but their roles are undefined, and the return shape is not described beyond the listed statistics.

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 even though the parameter descriptions are mostly tautological ('Id to process', 'Symbol to process'). The tool description adds some meaning by listing valid intervals, but it does not clarify the relationship between id, symbol, and instrument, nor the units or semantics of hours and limit, which are significant gaps.

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 clearly what the tool returns: OHLCV candles for one Polymarket Perps market with computed trend statistics. It names the intervals and the specific analytical use cases, making the resource and function unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from sibling market-data tools by emphasizing 'one market' and the precomputed trend stats.

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 'Use it for momentum, breakout and mean-reversion checks,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as polyperp-quotes or polyperp-trades, but the stated use cases are specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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