get_market_resolution_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 (five words) but is structured as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence. While brevity is positive, the lack of a full sentence impairs clarity and makes it read more like a title than a functional description.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context about what the tool returns. Saying 'status' is too vague; the agent cannot infer the specific fields or structure (e.g., state, timestamps, resolution outcomes). This leaves a significant information gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'market', which is described as 'Market token address'. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Full resolution pipeline status.' indicates the tool provides status information about the resolution pipeline for a market. However, it is vague: it does not specify what aspects of the pipeline are included (e.g., final outcome, dispute status), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_outcome' or 'get_final_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely declarative, offering no context for appropriate usage.

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