polymarket_one_click_onboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real facts beyond them: extra gas consumes additional input, and the call does not open a trading account. It still says nothing about what the plan contains or whether downstream execution is required.

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 short sentences, zero filler, purpose front-loaded. The downside is that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, but nothing in the text is redundant.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should describe what a 'plan' returns and how the read-only preview path (userAddress omitted) differs from a runnable plan. Neither is addressed, leaving a material gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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% across all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents amount, fromChain, fromToken, userAddress, gasTopupAmountUsd, and the rest. The description only echoes the gas top-up behavior, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the intended resources (Polygon USDC.e, optional POL gas) and the verb 'plan', which points toward a quote/preview tool. However, 'plan' is never unpacked, so the agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a price quote, a list of transactions, or a multi-step route. It only partially separates itself from sibling hyperliquid_one_click_onboard.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool such as get_cross_chain_bridge_quote or hyperliquid_one_click_onboard. The clause 'this does not create a trading account' is a scope boundary, but it rules out a capability rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over an alternative.

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