Paper-trading status & scoring

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the scoring model ('a resolved market pays the winning outcome $1'), that P&L is net of fees, and that Brier scores compare user estimates against market implied probability at entry. It tacitly signals a side effect ('resolved bets scored automatically') consistent with readOnlyHint=false, though it never states that calling this tool may settle/mutate ledger state.

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 lead sentence is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and the metrics list earns its place. The separate Args section duplicates the schema's response_format documentation, which is minor waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still explains the scoring rules and metric definitions an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is an explicit statement that the call may trigger settlement writes, which matters given readOnlyHint=false.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args block merely repeats the enum values and default already present in the structured schema.

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 ('Show') and resource ('SIMULATED paper-trading ledger') and enumerates exactly what is displayed: open bets marked-to-market, resolved bets, totals. The word SIMULATED and 'No real money anywhere' cleanly separate it from the real-position siblings like polymarket_get_positions.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer this is the read/report view of the paper_* family. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g. after paper_open or paper_close) nor any named alternative for users wanting real positions.

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