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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, a shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, 25 starting free play credits, and the fact that access fees are separate from stakes. Critically it discloses the auth mechanism (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binds the exact JSON arguments and API path) and retry semantics, which are non-obvious and directly affect how an agent must call it.

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?

Roughly ten distinct facts in a short paragraph with no filler, and the action enumeration is front-loaded. Structure suffers slightly from run-on sentences that interleave pricing, settlement, auth, and retry without grouping, and the bare 'POST /api/second-date-resolve.' line carries little weight for an MCP caller.

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 four-mode tool with three oneOf variants and no output schema, it covers cost, auth signing, idempotency/retry, settlement of missing reports, and points to /api/second-dates-contract for schemas and the receipt verification key. It gives no hint of what a status or resolve response contains, but the contract-pointer largely compensates.

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 effectively complete via patterns and const/enum, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above that by explaining why request_id must be preserved with exact arguments (wallet proof binding) and when a fresh one is required, which is meaning the schema cannot express.

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 first sentence enumerates four concrete operations (read status, resolve reports, submit an operator-signed decision, verify a receipt) against a named resource, so an agent knows exactly which action strings map to which intent. It never names the adjacent siblings (wever_second-date-bet, wever_second-date-market-open), so differentiation from those is only implied by the settlement and betting-close sentences.

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?

Each action-mode is tied to a condition: 'decision' is for conflicting reports, 'verify_receipt' for signed receipts, and 'use a new request_id for current status' versus 'keep request_id and exact arguments for retry'. It also states when betting closes, giving context on when resolution becomes relevant. It stops short of explicitly excluding or naming alternative tools for placing bets or opening markets.

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