updown_quote_shares

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

The description discloses two key behaviors: includes slippage and returns 0 if no active round. However, with no annotations, it does not cover side effects or safe usage (e.g., read-only vs. state-changing).

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 highly concise with a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains 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?

The description lacks details about the return value format and how to interpret the result. Given 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 only 25% (only amount has a description). The description does not explain asset, tf, or side beyond what the schema offers, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 previews shares minted by a hypothetical bet on the current round, mentions slippage inclusion, and returns 0 if no active round. This distinguishes it from related tools like updown_bet (actual bet) and updown_quote_current_payout.

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 previewing before betting but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to alternatives. No comparative guidance is provided.

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