atstake_get_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does declare the key traits: this is explicitly read-only and it discloses the authentication requirement (wallet unlock) plus the workaround of supplying an address. It does not cover failure modes, e.g. what happens for a nonexistent bid or an invalid side, which keeps it from 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?

The what-it-does and return-contents line is front-loaded and the unlock/address note follows logically. The trailing "Tip: call earning_opportunities" is cross-promotional and does not help an agent invoke this tool correctly, so it dilutes an otherwise tight 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully summarizes the returned fields, and the auth/default behavior is covered. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (invalid side, unknown bidder) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the side enum mapping and the address default. The description only reinforces the address/unlock nuance and says nothing about `side`, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Read a resting bid") and enumerates what the read returns: shares wanted, sBTC escrowed, and the implied price. This distinguishes it cleanly from the mutating siblings atstake_place_bid and atstake_cancel_bid without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete invocation context: it defaults to the unlocked wallet, which must be unlocked, and passing an address lets you read anyone without unlocking. It does not name alternative read tools (e.g. atstake_position) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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