Polymarket daily digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it reads local ledgers rather than hitting Polymarket, and points to the README for scheduling, though it doesn't discuss partial-failure behavior or cost of the embedded scans.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value proposition and tightly written, with the arg list kept brief. The parenthetical about Windows scheduling is mild extra weight but plausibly useful for the intended daily-use workflow.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety/behavior profile, so the description is largely complete. It could better note how the composite behaves if one sub-scan fails, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with types, ranges and defaults. The description restates arb_scan_top and movers_limit but adds no new meaning and omits response_format entirely, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific composite resource and enumerates exactly the four payloads it returns (paper-trading status, arbitrage scan, top movers, calibration status) in one call, which cleanly separates it from the granular siblings like paper_status or find_arbitrage. An agent can tell it is an aggregator without inspecting any schema.

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?

"Meant to be run each morning" gives a clear when-to-use context, and "all in one call" implies the alternative of calling the individual tools separately. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it replaces or conditions under which the granular calls are preferred, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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