atstake_merge_complete_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the burn of BONDED and IDLE sats, the sBTC return, the market-open constraint, and the unlocked-wallet requirement. It does not cover failure modes such as insufficient matched pairs or whether fees apply, so it falls short of complete transparency.

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 core explanation is front-loaded and efficient: action, effect, constraint, and alternative appear in the first three sentences. The closing `earning_opportunities` tip is mildly extraneous for correct invocation and slightly dilutes focus.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential action, preconditions, limitation, and sibling alternative. It leaves out edge-case behavior such as partial fills, failure handling, or fees, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents `sats`. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the same `sats` amount is burned from both BONDED and IDLE and returned as sBTC, which is more than the schema's brief parameter note.

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 precise action: hand back a matched pair of shares, burn equal BONDED and IDLE sats, and return sBTC. It clearly distinguishes the operation from `atstake_redeem` by noting that this only works while the market is open. An agent can understand the resource and effect without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit alternative: after resolve, use `atstake_redeem`. It also states the precondition that the market must be open and the wallet must be unlocked, and clarifies that only the hedged part can be unwound, not the directional part.

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