resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state a concrete behavior: positions are resolved and winners receive $1/share. However, it does not disclose that resolution is likely irreversible/final, whether authorization is required, or what happens to losing or partially resolved positions.

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?

One clean sentence with no redundant words; the action and core outcome are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description omits important context for a financially mutating tool: it doesn't say the action is final, who may call it, how it interacts with account balances/portfolio, or when it should not be repeated. The agent is left to guess at operational consequences.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only implies that 'slug_or_id' identifies the market. It says nothing about the 'account' parameter, its default/semantics, or how a slug or ID should be formatted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve'), targets 'a market's positions', and specifies the financial outcome ('paying out $1/share for winning outcome'). The singular 'a market' also sets it apart from the sibling resolve_all.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus resolve_all, buy, sell, or other settlement tools. No preconditions, permissions, or 'when not to use' information is provided; the agent must infer from the name.

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