atstake_place_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 so well: it discloses that bids at or above par are rejected outright, that escrow is locked until a counterparty matches, that a match requires both sides to cover one sat per share, and that funds return in full via atstake_cancel_bid. It also flags the cost rail (wallet's sats balance) and the wallet-state prerequisite.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, then layers mechanics, constraints, and the cancellation path in short paragraphs that each carry information. The closing tip to call earning_opportunities is a promotional aside that does not help an agent invoke this tool correctly, which costs it the top score.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: prerequisites, failure mode (at/above par), lock semantics, and recovery via cancel. It does not say what the call returns or whether a bid can be modified rather than cancelled, leaving a small gap.

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 explains `side`, `amount`, and `total_sats` including the must-be-less-than-amount rule. The description reinforces the pricing formula (total_sats/amount, must be under 1) with economic reasoning, but adds little about the four enum values or units beyond what the schema states. 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — escrow sBTC into a resting bid for one side — and adds the defining scope constraint (below par). It is clearly differentiable from the other market tools in the sibling list (stacks_market_buy_yes/no, atstake_mint_complete_set) because it describes a resting escrowed order rather than an immediate purchase.

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 concrete operating conditions: one resting bid per side at a time, requires an unlocked wallet, spends real sBTC. It also names the escape hatch (atstake_cancel_bid) and a related discovery tool. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over the immediate-buy siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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