updown_get_user_bet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation and clarifies a key behavior (amount=0 means no bet). However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, what happens for non-existent round_ids, or any side effects. The clarity on the zero amount is helpful but minimal.

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 with only two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a useful clarification. While it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters), its brevity avoids unnecessary content.

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 tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value format beyond the zero-bet case, nor does it describe any preconditions or error handling. For a simple read tool, it is missing enough detail for an agent to confidently interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does not explain 'asset', 'tf', or 'round_id' beyond context from the tool name. While 'asset' is partially understood from the schema enum, 'tf' and 'round_id' lack units or format hints. The description mentions 'amount' but that is a return field, not an input parameter.

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 tool retrieves the user's bet for a specific UPDOWN round, with a single verb 'get' and clear resource. It also provides a useful note about the meaning of amount=0, which aids interpretation. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools due to the 'updown' prefix and focus on a single bet.

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 like updown_my_history (which lists all bets) or updown_get_round (which gets round details). The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using the tool effectively.

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