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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the paid x402/USDC $1.00 cost, the 24-hour lobby pinning side effect, and that a slot-exhausted request is refused without charge rather than partially executed. It does not cover what happens after submission (resolution obligations, refunds, whether the pin can be extended).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator, then the refusal rule, then the price. Dense and waste-free, with only minor cost from deferring the core action to a sibling reference.

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 6-parameter paid creation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, rejection, and visibility but never indicates what a successful call returns (e.g. a market id or confirmation) or what the agent can do next with it. The "same as ask_the_crowd" delegation covers some of this only if the agent already knows that sibling.

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 83% with per-field descriptions for options, question, closes_at, description, and resolution_source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about any parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves it at the baseline.

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 definition anchors on the named sibling ("Same as ask_the_crowd") and then states the concrete differentiator: the market is pinned in the players' lobby for 24 hours. It does not itself give a verb+resource (e.g. "create a paid, pinned market"), so an agent must resolve the sibling to know what is being asked, but the priority variant is clearly distinguished.

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 rationale for choosing this over the free sibling is implied by "so more people answer sooner," and the failure mode (refused when all priority slots are taken) is stated without saying when to fall back to ask_the_crowd. There is no explicit "use this when you need responses fast" guidance or budget/threshold advice for the $1.00 cost.

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