updown_bet

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

Discloses key behaviors: auto-approves USDB, pre-checks balance/minBet client-side, and optional slippage guard. However, with no annotations, more detail on side effects (e.g., failure modes, atomicity) would improve transparency.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, behavior, and optional parameter. No redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

Fails to explain return values, how to identify the current round, prerequisites (wallet, USDB balance), or relation to siblings like 'updown_get_round'. A more complete description would tie these together.

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 low (40%), but the description only adds meaning for slippage_percent. Parameters like 'tf' (timeframe) and 'asset' are left unexplained, requiring the agent to infer from enums and tool name.

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?

Description clearly states 'Place a bullish or bearish bet on the current UPDOWN round,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'bet' by targeting the UPDOWN round specifically.

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 vs. alternatives like 'bet' or other updown tools. The mentions of auto-approval and pre-checks imply convenience but do not replace alternatives.

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