sell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sales execute at best available prices and explains order_type options (fok vs fak) including partial fill behavior. However, it omits details about potential failures, account requirements, or impact on portfolio. Some behavioral transparency exists but is incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately adding the key order_type detail. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. It does not explain account usage, outcome validity, slug_or_id requirements, or behavior on failed orders. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential operational context for correct invocation.

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. It only explains order_type, providing its two possible values and their meaning. It does not describe shares, account, outcome, or slug_or_id, which remain undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, insufficient for the coverage gap.

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 the tool sells shares in a Polymarket outcome, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes 'at best available prices', distinguishing it from limit-order tools like place_limit_order. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like buy.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a market-order behavior but does not mention conditions such as when to use buy instead, or when to prefer a limit order. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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