has_betted_on_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean), or any side effects. The minimal description fails to compensate for the missing annotations.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded with essential details without becoming verbose, but overall it is efficient.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. An agent needs to know the return type (e.g., boolean) and how to interpret the result. The minimal description does not provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 one parameter 'market' with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any meaning about what 'market' expects (e.g., ID, address, or other format). The burden falls entirely on the description to explain the parameter, but it is absent.

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 'Check' and the resource 'if you have bet on a prediction market', which is specific and distinguishes it from general getter tools. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes 'bet on' (e.g., any outstanding bet) and how it differs from similar tools like 'get_my_shares' or 'pm_get_user_shares'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for checking bets or shares, the description does not provide any context about preferred usage or when to choose this over others like 'pm_get_user_shares' or 'get_my_orders'.

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