Resolve all closed positions

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real substance: $1-per-winning-share payout semantics, writes to the local account, open markets skipped, network-failed markets skipped with a retry-later note. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or any cap on the number of markets processed, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste; the core behavior and payout rule are front-loaded, and the sibling routing is placed last where it belongs. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What it does explain — payout semantics, skip conditions, retry guidance, and the resolve alternative — is exactly what an agent needs; only the absence of any note on scale or partial-failure reporting keeps it from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents the paper-account naming rules. The description adds nothing about the account parameter beyond implying 'local account', which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('settle every open position whose market has closed') with scope made explicit ('every'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve by naming that sibling directly. An agent can tell it apart from resolve without opening either schema.

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?

States the selection condition (markets that have closed), the exclusion (open markets are skipped), the failure mode (transient network error → retry later), and names the alternative tool ('Use resolve to settle a single market'). Routing between resolve_all and resolve is unambiguous.

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