alpha_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Winning = 1:1 USDC,' which hints at conversion rates, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on failure. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely involves financial transactions.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence. The second sentence adds useful rate information ('1:1 USDC'), but could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal 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?

Given the complexity (financial claiming tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and how it fits among siblings. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which the description does not adequately meet.

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 no additional semantic context beyond implying 'marketAppId' and 'assetId' relate to a resolved market and outcome tokens. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Claim USDC from a resolved Alpha Arcade market by redeeming outcome tokens.' It specifies the verb ('claim'), resource ('USDC'), and context ('resolved Alpha Arcade market'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'alpha_get_positions' or 'alpha_merge_shares' that might involve similar assets or markets.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when a market is resolved and tokens are redeemable, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites (e.g., market must be resolved), or alternatives among siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for winners only or how it differs from 'alpha_merge_shares' in handling tokens.

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