finalize_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'finalize', which suggests an irreversible state change, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., payouts, stake handling, permissions) beyond the name. Agents need more context.

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 one sentence, but it is minimally informative. It is not wordy, but could be more helpful without being longer. Not quite concise due to lack of content.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool being an irreversible action, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial context about outcomes, prerequisites, and effects, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The parameter description 'Market token address' is clear and matches the schema. No additional meaning added beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'finalize' and the resource 'market resolution', and specifies the timing 'after challenge period', distinguishing it from earlier resolution steps like dispute_outcome or propose_outcome.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It implies the condition 'after challenge period' but does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or when to avoid it (e.g., if challenge period not expired).

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