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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the call is 'cheap' (cost transparency) and implies it is a read-only info fetch, but it does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication requirements, or potential staleness. It does not describe error behavior or whether the data is cached. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 a single dense sentence, but it packs a lot of relevant detail without being verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned facts. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but it remains efficient and each item earns its place. No redundant fluff.

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 a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists all the major data points it returns (order acceptance, chain/contract, engine version, fees, rate limits, collateral). It does not specify the exact response format, but without an output schema that is acceptable. It also hints at the use case (pre-trade setup). Overall, it gives an agent enough to decide when and why to call it.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to clarify inputs, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a 4 is appropriate.

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: providing venue-level facts needed before trading on Polymarket Perps. It enumerates specific items (order status, settlement chain, fees, rate limits, collateral) which distinguishes it from sibling market-data tools like x402-polyperp-book or x402-polyperp-quotes. The verb 'provides' with a clear resource and scope makes it unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be called 'before a bot starts trading' and positions it as a one-time setup call to avoid throttling or fee miscalculation. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (book, quotes, trades) makes it clear this is the configuration/info call. It could be stronger by explicitly saying 'use this for venue settings, not market data', but the usage context is evident.

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