atstake_market_status

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 well: it explicitly states the tool is read-only and needs no wallet, and explains the market's settlement behavior, including that YES requires a Bitcoin SPV proof and NO can be triggered by resolve-idle after close. This gives an agent strong behavioral context beyond a bare label.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable through its market-mechanics explanation. The final tip about earning_opportunities is mildly extraneous for this tool, but the overall structure is clear and mostly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description must supply the missing context. It identifies the status fields returned and explains the market's resolution conditions, giving an agent enough information to call and interpret the result without needing additional structured documentation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and appropriately focuses on the returned market status instead.

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 states a specific subject and scope: the current status of the El Salvador PoX-5 prediction market, including claim, trading status, escrowed sBTC, and close height. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as atstake_position, atstake_get_bid, or atstake_resolve_idle, which act on positions, bids, or resolution rather than reading market state.

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 gives clear context that this is a read-only status check requiring no wallet, which helps an agent know when it is safe and appropriate to call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for selection against siblings.

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