topai_polymarket_arbitrage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and destructive=false, and the description largely restates these ('read-only, idempotent'). It adds only marginal new behavioral context ('Stateless') and doesn't discuss precision, rounding, or boundaries of the Kelly output — acceptable given a pure calculator but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, then usage, then the exclusion. No filler; every clause carries routing or scope information.

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, the description usefully enumerates the return values (implied probability, mispricing delta, EV%, Kelly sizing), which is the key missing structured info an agent would need. It stops short of describing output format or edge-case handling, keeping it from a 5.

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 each of the three parameters (including bankroll_usd and the 0.01–0.99 ranges) is already documented. The description connects bankroll to 'fractional Kelly criterion position sizing' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Computes' plus a precise resource set (implied probability, mispricing delta, EV%, fractional Kelly sizing) between two named inputs. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling, none of which are pricing/odds calculators.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('quantitative prediction market analysis, odds comparison, risk-adjusted bankroll allocation') and when-not ('Do not use for standard VAT or invoice accounting'), naming the alternative tool. Routing is fully specified.

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