atstake_mint_complete_set

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 discloses that this spends real sBTC, meters against the wallet's sats rail, requires an unlocked wallet, leaves the caller flat, and is reversible only before market resolution. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a financial mutation.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and then layers the no-side-taking clarification, alternative routing, voting-weight use case, and operational requirements. Despite being longer than a minimal description, each sentence adds decision-relevant information for an agent.

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 financial transaction with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important invocation and risk context: spend, auth, reversibility, purpose, and alternative tools. It could say more about the expected response or post-resolution irreversibility, but it is nearly complete for correct tool selection.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for the single sats parameter, including the fact that it mints shares of EACH side and has a 1,000 legion minimum. The description reinforces the per-sat share mechanics and minimum but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: spend sBTC to mint a matched BONDED/IDLE pair. It also explicitly distinguishes the action from taking a directional view, making it easy to separate from sibling tools like atstake_place_bid.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use this to stay hedged or to buy legion voting weight, and use atstake_place_bid instead when taking a directional view. It also names atstake_merge_complete_set as the reversal path before market resolution.

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