atstake_redeem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the payout rule, that BOTH sides are burned, that the burn is total and one-shot, and that an unlocked wallet is required. It doesn't cover failure modes such as redeeming an already-burned position or fee costs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 payout mechanics and preconditions are front-loaded and each sentence carries real information, including the useful idempotency warning. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is cross-promotional and does not help an agent decide how to invoke this tool, 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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what the call does economically, when it is legal, what state it destroys, and the wallet prerequisite. Only fee/error behavior is left underspecified.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate here since nothing exists to document.

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 names a specific verb ('Cash a resolved position') and resource, then defines the exact payoff mechanics: winning side 1 sat per share, losing side zero, both burned. This separates it clearly from sibling tools like atstake_merge_complete_set and atstake_position.

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 states the hard precondition ('Only callable after the market resolves') and warns that a second call is pointless because the position is fully burned. It falls short of naming an alternative path for unresolved markets (e.g., merge or transfer a complete set), which would have made it a 5.

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