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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only reference listing and discloses the fields the agent will get back, which is more than nothing. It does not state whether results are paginated, whether the data is cached/live, whether any auth or payment requirement applies (the x402 prefix suggests paid access), or what happens when category doesn't match.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned attributes. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information (what constraints are available) comes early; only the missing verb makes it slightly less scannable.

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's field enumeration usefully stands in for a response spec, and for a simple two-parameter read that covers much of the ground. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics plus no mention of pagination or access/payment requirements leaves real gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly in a crowded perp tool set.

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 coverage is 0% — both 'limit' and 'category' are undescribed in the schema — and the description never mentions either parameter. An agent must guess that limit is a string-typed row cap and that category accepts particular Polymarket Perps category values; no enum or format guidance exists anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource — every market tradable on Polymarket Perps — and enumerates the per-market attributes returned (max leverage, risk tier, min notional, decimals, price band, funding interval, liquidation fee). That is far more concrete than the bare name, though it never states the operation as a verb (list/return) and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like x402-polyperp-book or x402-polyperp-quotes.

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 phrase 'the constraints you need before sending an order' implicitly positions this as a pre-trade lookup step, which is useful context. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules and no named alternative (e.g., use x402-polyperp-book for depth, x402-polyperp-quotes for live prices), so an agent facing the large polyperp family gets only a hint of routing.

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