Biggest single bets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is paid (~$0.005), which is important behavioral context. It also discloses the output scope and content (top-20, market/side/size/price/wallet/score) and the configurable window, though it does not discuss rate limits, permissions, or sort direction.

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 compact: one sentence plus a parenthetical annotation. It front-loads the critical cost warning and packs the output scope, fields, and parameter details into a tight, readable format. There is no wasted prose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers cost, result limit, temporal window, market scope, and expected output fields. A caller can decide whether to invoke the tool and predict what it returns without additional lookup.

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 input schema only defines 'window' with enum values, but the description adds the default value (24h) and explains the parameter as selecting the time window. This meaningfully supplements the schema, especially since schema coverage is 0%.

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 identifies the tool as returning the top-20 largest single trades across all Polymarket markets, with the specific fields included (market, side, size, price, wallet + score). This is distinct from sibling tools like predge_whales_latest or predge_whale_market by focusing on single-trade size globally rather than whale activity or per-market trends.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want the largest individual Polymarket trades within a 24h/7d window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is precise enough to guide tool selection without the need for detailed qualification.

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