polymarket_one_click_onboard

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and idempotent, and the description is consistent with that by clarifying the tool only plans rather than creating an account. It adds genuinely non-schema information: the response carries an executeUrl that must be surfaced to the user, and extra gas costs additional input on top of the primary amount. It stops short of describing plan validity/expiry or what happens if userAddress is omitted.

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?

Three short clauses with the scope constraint front-loaded and the critical UI instruction at the end; nothing is padded. The phrase 'Extra gas spends additional input' is slightly awkward and could be tighter, but the size is well matched to the tool.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the executeUrl in the response and the plan-then-sign workflow. Annotations already cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around preview-mode limitations and whether quotes expire, but nothing blocking 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 parameters are already well documented (including the gasTopupAmountUsd range and the preview-only meaning of an omitted userAddress). The description's line 'Extra gas spends additional input' reinforces the includeGasTopup/gasTopupAmountUsd semantics but largely restates what the schema already says ('in addition to the full primary input').

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 and outcome: 'Plan Polygon USDC.e plus optional POL gas', which tells an agent this is a quoting/planning tool, not an executor. The clause 'this does not create a trading account' usefully delimits scope. It never names or contrasts with siblings such as hyperliquid_one_click_onboard or get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied through the workflow instruction 'Always show executeUrl to the user for 1-click browser wallet signing', which frames this as the planning step before an out-of-band signing step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternative onboarding or bridge-quote siblings.

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