updown_min_bet

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling for invalid assets, or any side effects. The description only states what it returns.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information (minimum bet amount) and is efficiently structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description mentions the return is an amount in USDB, which is helpful. However, it could specify the type (e.g., number) and whether it is per round or per bet. The tool is one of many updown tools, but the description does not clarify its specific role.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'asset' parameter beyond its existence. Although the schema includes an enum, the description adds no meaning about valid values or expected format.

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 it returns the minimum bet amount for an UPDOWN asset, which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like updown_bet (which places bets) and updown_quote_shares (which quotes shares). However, it does not explicitly state it is a read operation.

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 such as updown_quote_current_payout or updown_slippage_threshold. There is no indication of prerequisites or context.

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