alpha_merge_shares

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it explains the core merging logic (1 YES + 1 NO = 1 USDC), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or state-changing operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after merging. For a financial operation with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. The mathematical relationship (1 YES + 1 NO = 1 USDC) is efficiently communicated.

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 financial merging operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or integration with the broader Alpha Arcade system. The presence of sibling tools like 'alpha_split_shares' suggests this is part of a token management system that needs more contextual explanation.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'amount' relates to the YES/NO token pairing or provide examples of typical values.

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 specific action ('Merge'), the resources involved ('equal YES and NO outcome tokens'), the target ('back into USDC'), and the platform ('on Alpha Arcade'). It also distinguishes from its sibling 'alpha_split_shares' by describing the opposite operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to other tools like 'alpha_claim' or 'alpha_get_positions' that might be relevant in similar contexts.

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