bet

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the payout mechanism (winners split losing pool + general pot, not $1/share) and profit formula. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., fees, loss of bet amount if outcome loses) and return value format.

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 (~70 words) and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently packs payout model, pre-steps, and profit formula. Minor improvement possible in structuring the pre-steps as a clearer list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers payout model and prerequisites but misses output format, error conditions, and success behavior. An agent needs more information about what the tool returns after a bet.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate to profit calculation (e.g., get_potential_payout context). This enhances understanding beyond 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 the tool's purpose: 'Buy shares in a prediction market outcome.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like estimate_shares_out and get_potential_payout by being the actual execution step. The unique payout model (UNCAPPED, not $1/share) further clarifies its role.

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 a sequential pre-betting checklist: 1) get_my_shares, 2) estimate_shares_out, 3) get_potential_payout, and explains how to compute profit. This explicitly guides when and how to use the tool, reducing ambiguity.

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