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

The description adds important behavior beyond the readOnly annotation: it returns an unsigned EIP-712 order and requires signing with the agent's trading key before submit_order. It does not discuss expiry, fee caps, or what happens if the prepared order is never submitted, but the core workflow is disclosed.

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 purpose, then a compact price example, then the required next step. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what is returned, how price/outcome work, and that submit_order follows. It is not fully complete because optional trading constraints such as fee cap and expiry are unmentioned, and SELL semantics are left implicit.

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?

It adds meaningful domain semantics for outcome, price, and side, explaining that buying YES at 0.30 pays 0.30 per share and that BUY NO expresses the opposite view. However, with 8 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, it leaves maxFeeBps and expirySeconds unexplained and does not clarify SELL behavior.

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 a specific action and artifact: it returns an EIP-712 order to sign with the agent's trading key. It also distinguishes the preparation step from submission by naming submit_order as the next call.

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 clearly positions this tool as the pre-submission step and explicitly says to call submit_order afterward. It also explains the YES/NO betting orientation, but it does not state when to choose this over other prepare_* siblings or mention any exclusions.

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