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 discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC per call) and what data it returns, but does not mention rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid token), or that it is a read-only operation. The pay-per-call disclosure is useful, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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, front-loaded with the core function, then a cost note. No fluff, every word earns its place. The description is compact and immediately understandable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists all major return types (price, liquidity, volume, DEX pairs, onchain metadata) and the cost. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gaps: no mention of return format (e.g., JSON) or error cases, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'token', with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (it says 'any polygon ERC-20 token' but that's the same). Since schema is complete, baseline of 3 applies; no additional value is added.

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 specific verb (retrieves) and resource (polygon ERC-20 token market data), listing concrete data fields: price, liquidity, 24h volume, DEX pairs, plus onchain metadata. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polygon_balance (likely balance) and polygon_tx (transactions) by focusing on market data.

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 when to use it (when you need market data for a Polygon token) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of polygon_trending' or 'not for token balances'. The usage is inferable from the purpose but not spelled out.

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