get_potential_payout

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the calculation but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, required permissions, or potential side effects. The formula is described, but there is no mention of what happens if inputs are invalid or if the tool is idempotent.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and formula. The second sentence, though slightly dense, efficiently explains the two modes. Could be improved by using bullet points for clarity.

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 description covers the formula and modes but lacks mention of the return value. Without an output schema, the agent does not know what the tool returns (e.g., a number, an object). It also assumes prior knowledge of 'estimate_shares_out' without explaining how to obtain it.

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 60%; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the roles of 'shares', 'new_shares_from_bet', and 'estimated_usdb_to_pool' in the context of the two modes. However, 'market' and 'outcome' are not elaborated 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 'Calculate prediction market resolution payout' and provides the exact formula. It distinguishes two modes (CURRENT and BET PREVIEW), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_price' or 'preview_trade'.

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 explains when to use each mode (CURRENT for existing position, BET PREVIEW for estimating potential payout). It references 'estimate_shares_out' as a prerequisite for preview mode. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternatives.

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