Polyrank market consensus

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

The description adds moderate context beyond the annotations (e.g., 'differentiated signal', specific data fields). However, annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the behavioral burden is partially lifted. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists additional data. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to invoke it. The output is adequately described without needing an output schema.

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 sole parameter 'market' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description echoes the schema explanation but adds no new semantic depth, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool provides 'Smart-money consensus on a Polymarket market vs the market mid' along with volume, fills, positioner counts, and top holders. It distinctly differentiates from siblings like polyrank_get_movers and polyrank_get_smart_money_report, which focus on different aspects.

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?

It explicitly explains how to use the tool (via conditionId or market slug) and lists the specific data returned. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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