polymarket_alpha_divergence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sanitization via CanaryGuard and the non-obvious cost (0.02 USDC on Base), but says nothing about whether it is a read-only scan, rate limits, latency, or what form the returned alpha takes.

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 tight sentences with the core scanning behavior front-loaded and the cost stated compactly at the end. No filler, though the price clause could arguably live in separate metadata.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more. It names the return concept but not its structure, and offers no differentiation from siblings, leaving the agent with gaps for a paid, sanitized-signal tool.

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% with all three parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about limit, category, or strict_mode beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Scans), resource (Polymarket CLOB orderbooks), the signals it detects (volume spikes, smart-money spread divergence), and the output artifact (CanaryGuard sanitized alpha). It is clear on its own, but does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as alpha_polymarket_whale_orderflow or polymarket_top_whales.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over the Polymarket siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual note is a price, which is operational rather than a usage cue.

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