updown_claim

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

Discloses the key behavior of refusing to send if payout is 0, which is critical for an agent to understand. Without annotations, this description provides valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no redundant information. Every word is necessary and 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?

For a simple claim tool, the description covers the essential behavioral constraint (pre-check and refusal). Lacks details on parameter semantics and output, but overall sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of related quote tools.

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?

No parameter descriptions in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. While tool name and context suggest the purpose of asset, tf, and round_id, explicit documentation is missing, forcing the agent to infer meaning from enum values 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?

The description clearly identifies the action (claim winnings or refund) and the resource (settled UPDOWN round), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like updown_bet and updown_quote_claim.

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?

Mentions a pre-check via quoteClaimPayout, implying when to use (after checking payout is non-zero), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updown_quote_claim or updown_settle.

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