Analyze wallet portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does so by stating the tool is read-only, requires authentication, and its domain (Elon markets only). It also mentions the expected-value assessment, though it could still elaborate on what the analysis includes (e.g., whether it returns numerical values, comparisons, etc.).

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, ensuring the agent immediately understands the tool's role.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters (2), the description covers the essentials: purpose, prerequisites, read-only nature, and scope. It does not describe the output format, but the context of 'expected-value assessment per position' provides a general idea. Slight gap for full completeness.

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 schema already describes 100% of parameters, so the description's marginal value is modest. However, it adds context: 'bankroll' is explained as optional and used for Kelly sizing suggestions, which is not in the schema description. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'analyze', the specific resource 'Polymarket wallet's open positions across active Elon tweet-count markets', and includes the scope 'Elon markets only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_predictions or get_trading_signals which have different purposes.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: requires a PRO API key (POLYSTRIKE_API_KEY) and will fail with HTTP 402 without it. It also clarifies that it is read-only and never modifies orders, helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus others that may place trades.

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