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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the authentication requirements, including signing steps, time constraints on issued_at, and the need for a fresh UUIDv7 for replay protection. It also implies that predictions are signed and submitted, and does not directly contradict any annotations (since none exist). This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent understand the process.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the most critical information (the signing process). It is not overly long, but it packs a lot into one sentence, which could be overwhelming. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though the structure could be improved with bullet points or section breaks to enhance readability. It is concise in that every sentence is essential, but the paragraph format makes it harder to digest.

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 complexity of the auth requirement, the description covers the necessary steps in detail. It explains how to construct the envelope, what to sign, and the constraints on timestamps and request_id. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because it is not needed to invoke the tool correctly. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the full process of making a prediction, including the authentication overhead.

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 80%, and the description adds significant detail about the auth parameter, including the exact signing procedure. It also adds context for value (decimal string) and instrument (EXCHANGE-SYMBOL slug). While the schema already covers 80% of parameters, the description enriches the understanding of the auth construction process, which is critical for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 that the tool submits a signed prediction, which conveys the action and resource clearly. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_prediction or challenge_resolution, though the 'submit' vs 'get' distinction is implicit. The purpose is clear enough to differentiate from most siblings.

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 provides detailed instructions on how to construct the authentication envelope, which is a prerequisite for using the tool. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to make a prediction versus resolving a challenge or checking leaderboard. The usage context is implied as the action of making a prediction, but no explicit guidance on alternative tools or conditions is given.

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