propose_outcome

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

The description discloses the 5 USDB bond requirement, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention other important aspects like prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after proposing (e.g., dispute period).

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded with more context without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of the domain and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of 'proposing' an outcome, return values, or how it integrates with other actions like finalization or disputes.

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% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 action 'propose winning outcome' and mentions the bond requirement. However, it does not specify which market or context, leaving some ambiguity about its precise role among sibling tools like 'dispute_outcome' or 'finalize_market'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'dispute_outcome', 'veto_outcome', 'finalize_market'). The description offers no context for decision-making.

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