report_trade

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the 'why' (consensus aggregation) but omits safety-critical details: whether the report is permanent, if it triggers notifications, rate limits, or required permissions. 'Report' implies recording but doesn't specify side effects.

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense Args block. No redundant text; every line provides essential parameter constraints or purpose definition.

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 5 parameters with zero schema coverage, the Args block achieves complete parameter documentation. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details. Only missing behavioral context prevents a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates via the Args block, providing semantic meaning for all 5 parameters including valid value enumerations ('kalshi'/'polymarket', 'yes'/'no') and range constraints (0.0-1.0 for price) that the schema lacks.

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?

States specific action ('Report a trade') and distinct purpose ('consensus probability aggregation'), which differentiates it from read-only tools like get_consensus. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction from sibling place_shadow_trade, which sounds functionally similar.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative selection criteria. Given the sibling place_shadow_trade exists, the description fails to clarify whether this tool is for real executed trades versus simulated ones, or when to prefer one over the other.

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