atstake_legion_propose

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the payout (3,000 shares of your own side), the state constraints (one live proposal at a time plus cooldown and legion-wide interval), the balance requirement that legion_conclude re-reads, the consequence of selling out before conclusion (forfeited payout), ASCII-only inputs, and the unlocked-wallet requirement. It also spells out the acceptance criterion for the link — it must be public and reproducible, which is what a no vote is for.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then payout, then link discipline, then constraints — a sensible order. It is a touch padded: the sentence justifying the mechanism ('it pays people for checking Bitcoin and PoX-5...') is motivational rather than operational, and the trailing `earning_opportunities` tip is a cross-sell unrelated to proposing.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, coverage is strong on prerequisites, constraints, and consequences. The remaining gap is what the call returns — an agent is not told whether it gets a proposal identifier it would need for atstake_legion_get_proposal or atstake_legion_vote.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by telling the proposer that the link must actually support the claim, and that point-in-time evidence should be declared as such in the description rather than implied as a standing truth. The ASCII-only note duplicates schema text, and 'all three fields' is slightly loose against four parameters, but the semantic guidance on evidence quality is genuine added value.

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 ('Open a proposal in a legion') and then defines what a proposal actually is — a claim about the market's subject, backed by a public link, voted on by other holders of your side. This is far beyond restating the name and lets an agent distinguish it from atstake_legion_vote, atstake_legion_list_proposals, and atstake_legion_conclude.

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 preconditions and rate constraints: minimum share balance, unlocked wallet, one live proposal per proposer, a per-proposer cooldown, and a legion-wide interval between proposals. It never explicitly names a sibling (e.g. 'use atstake_legion_list_proposals to check existing proposals first' or 'use atstake_legion_vote to vote on others'), so it stops short of 5, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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