Reset the SIMULATED paper-trading ledger

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing there is no undo, exactly what is destroyed (simulated bets including resolved ones, P&L, ROI, hit rate, Brier), the confirm gate that prevents accidental wipes, and that only a local file is rewritten. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive warning and the no-undo consequence before any parameter detail, which is the right ordering. The trailing Args list somewhat duplicates an already-complete schema, so there is minor redundancy.

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 need no prose, and the description covers the destructive semantics, confirmation requirement, and scope of erasure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 already 100%, and the Args block largely restates what the schema documents (confirm must be true, bankroll default 1000). It adds no new syntax, bounds, or interaction detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (wipe/reset) and resource (local SIMULATED paper-trading ledger), plus the effect (fresh virtual bankroll). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like polymarket_paper_delete, which would remove individual bets, since this erases the entire ledger.

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?

Gives clear context: this is a destructive full reset that requires confirm=true and involves no real money. However it does not explicitly name when to prefer polymarket_paper_delete or polymarket_paper_close instead, so the alternative-routing is left to inference.

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