get_neg_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Verify whether' implies a read-only determination (likely a boolean), which is some disclosure, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what the check actually entails. The return shape is covered only by the output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the Args block is minimal. Formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for a domain-specific tool, and it never explains what the negative-risk framework is or when the result matters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that token_id is 'the fundamental token identifier indicating the outcome side,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It still leaves open the token format/origin.

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 verb ('Verify whether') and a precise resource (a specified outcome token's market and its use of the negative-risk framework), which is unambiguous for an agent. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but none of the listed siblings perform this neg-risk check, so confusion risk is low.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of why one would verify neg-risk (e.g., before trading or resolving a multi-outcome market). Usage can only be inferred from the name and description.

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