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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable non-schema facts: it scans live data and costs $0.05 USDC per call. It omits latency, behavior when no edges clear the threshold, and result shape, which matter for a paid analysis tool.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the capability statement first and the cost disclosure last. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does supply the essentials: data source, analytic output, supported domains, and price. It stops short of describing result contents or edge cases, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 limit, category, and minEdgePercentage with defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description's category list does add example domains, but it names 'elections' while the schema enumerates 'pop-culture', a mild inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 specific verbs (scans, calculates) and a specific resource (live Polymarket prediction markets) plus the output class (+EV discrepancies, arbitrage spreads vs consensus models). That is enough to distinguish it from search_prediction_events (lookup) and get_whale_macro_signals (macro signals), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent infers this is for finding arbitrage/positive-EV opportunities rather than listing events. The price note ($0.05 USDC) usefully signals this is a paid call worth weighing against free siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait most definitions omit: a per-call price of $0.1 USDC, signaling a paid/x402-style invocation. However, it says nothing about refresh cadence, data provenance, latency, or what a 'signal' actually contains, so the agent cannot anticipate the return or the payment flow.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the price tag isolated in brackets. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is a bare cost note rather than additional guidance.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes scope and cost but leaves the result shape, signal interpretation, and payment mechanics unexplained. It is minimally sufficient to decide to call it, but not to use the output confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is needed since the asset classes are fixed.

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 verb ("Fetches") and a concrete resource ("real-time algorithmic whale accumulation and macro geopolitical momentum signals") scoped to Oil, Gold, and Crypto. It is clearly distinct from the prediction-market siblings, though it never states that distinction explicitly. Jargon like "algorithmic whale accumulation" is left undefined, but the asset coverage makes the purpose legible.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_prediction_arbitrage or search_prediction_events, nor any when-not guidance. The asset list implies a domain, but the agent must infer the use case entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a paid cost of $0.02 USDC and indicates that results include live probability pricing and liquidity volume. However, it does not clarify pagination, response shape, rate limits, or whether results are sorted, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 two compact fragments with zero waste, and the core search purpose is front-loaded. The price note is placed separately and does not interrupt the primary explanation.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the domain, data freshness, and cost. Because there is no output schema, it does helpfully mention that results include live probability outcome pricing and liquidity volume, though it still leaves response structure and result ordering unspecified.

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 both the query keyword and limit parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning such as query syntax, limit behavior, or search matching rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching active prediction markets on Polymarket. It adds domain detail by naming live probability outcome pricing and liquidity volume. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_prediction_arbitrage and get_whale_macro_signals, but the search framing is distinct enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 use case is implied by 'Searches active prediction markets' and the required keyword query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling arbitrage or whale-signal tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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