updown_quote_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It tells the return value and conditions for 0, but fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only query with no side effects. The name 'quote' hints at non-mutation, but it's not explicit.

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 one concise sentence plus a clarifying phrase. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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 query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. However, it lacks parameter documentation and could explicitly state read-only behavior. Sibling tools provide context but the description is mostly self-sufficient.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (asset, tf, round_id). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but doesn't. The enum for asset is self-explanatory, but tf and round_id lack meaning.

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 returns the exact USDB claimable from a settled round, and explains what a 0 result means. It distinguishes this from siblings like updown_claim (which actually performs the 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?

The description implies usage for settled rounds but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like updown_claim or updown_get_user_bet. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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