updown_quote_current_payout

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'estimate' and 'returns 0 if no bet', implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or other behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading key information. However, it could be more structured by incorporating parameter explanations without becoming verbose.

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 simple inputs and no output schema; the description gives a clear purpose but omits parameter details, leaving some gaps in understanding for an agent.

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 description provides no explanation of the required parameters 'asset' (enum) and 'tf' (number). The tool name and description do not clarify what 'tf' represents (likely time frame), leaving agents uninformed.

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 estimates payout for an active UPDOWN round if settled in user's favor, and specifies return of 0 if no bet placed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like updown_quote_claim or updown_quote_shares.

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 use when you want to know potential payout, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparison to siblings or conditions for non-use.

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