alpha_split_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a split operation but omits critical details: whether this is a transaction requiring signing/broadcasting, if it modifies on-chain state, what permissions or balances are needed, potential costs (e.g., transaction fees), or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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—two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and context, and the second provides essential unit conversion. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's essence without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a financial operation on a blockchain), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like transaction finality, error handling, or return values. For a tool that likely involves on-chain state changes, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the 'amount' parameter's unit conversion (1 USDC = 1,000,000 microunits) and implying 'marketAppId' relates to Alpha Arcade, but it does not explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples. This meets 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 specific action ('Split USDC into equal YES and NO outcome tokens'), identifies the resource ('on Alpha Arcade'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'alpha_merge_shares' (which performs the opposite operation) and other Alpha Arcade tools that handle orders, markets, or claims. It provides a concrete conversion ratio that reinforces the purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing USDC balance), compare it to 'alpha_merge_shares' (the inverse operation), or indicate typical use cases (e.g., preparing for prediction markets). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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