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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and local behavior. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: it runs locally with no API call, and off-tick prices are rounded so they never tighten the limit, with direction-specific rounding rules.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, local execution, rounding behavior, and usage context. The core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves locally and with off-tick prices, and when to use it, leaving no critical gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents price, bet_type, and direction thoroughly. The description reinforces the direction-based rounding logic but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema and its descriptions already provide.

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 a specific verb+resource: snapping a decimal price onto the API's tick schedule, and names the outputs (tick size and implied probability). This is clearly distinguishable from order-placement siblings such as place_order, even 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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to know the price an order will actually run with.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternative standard.

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