check_resolutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully signals state mutation via 'update P&L', indicating this is not a read-only operation. However, it omits idempotency guarantees, side effects on portfolio state, rate limits, or whether this triggers notifications/webhooks.

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?

Extremely efficient at 11 words in a single sentence. Front-loaded with the action ('Check') and scope ('all open trades'). No redundant phrases or filler 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?

Adequate for a parameterless batch operation where an output schema exists to define return values. The description establishes the core function (resolution checking and P&L calculation) sufficiently for selection, though additional context about execution timing would be beneficial.

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?

Zero parameters present with 100% schema coverage (trivially satisfied). The description implies no filtering is possible ('all open trades'), which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies as expected for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the tool checks 'all open trades for market resolution' and performs P&L updates. The scope ('all open trades') implicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_resolution which likely handles single markets. However, 'Check' is slightly weak as a verb and could be more specific (e.g., 'resolve', 'settle').

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like get_resolution or report_trade. Does not indicate if this should be run periodically, on-demand, or after specific market events. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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