Prediction-market quote

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

Given no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states the tool never mutates state (read-only), is for paper trading only, and describes the output fields (entry probability, share estimate, max payout, eligibility, freshness, decisionSupport). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the input 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 description is concise, contains multiple relevant details without being verbose. It front-loads the purpose and key behavioral traits. Minor improvement could be made by separating the output list more clearly, but it is effective.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, the return fields, behavioral traits, and usage constraints. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by specifying that stakeMusd must be > 0 and that the minimum to open is 10, which is additional context not present in the 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?

The description clearly states it provides a quote for a binary outcome, listing specific fields like entry probability, share estimate, max payout, etc. The verb 'quote' and resource 'PM' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on binary outcomes and tradability assessment, though not explicitly naming sibling tools.

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 description includes important usage constraints: read-only, paper trading only, virtual funds, not financial advice, and a minimum stake. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., spot_quote or futures_quote), nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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