atstake_resolve_idle

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: permissionless, pays the caller nothing, costs gas, moves no assets, requires an unlocked wallet, and blocks downstream payouts/redemptions until status changes. That is exactly the economic and authorization context an agent needs before invoking a state-changing call.

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 action and its precondition are front-loaded, and the cost/asset-movement/authorization facts are delivered in short, scannable sentences. The trailing 'Tip' promoting earning_opportunities is tangential to calling this tool and is the one sentence that does not fully earn its place.

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-param state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers precondition, caller cost, asset effects, wallet requirement, and downstream consequence. It stops short of saying what happens on failure (already resolved, height not reached) or what the caller can observe afterwards.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

It states a concrete verb and object ('Settle the market NO') plus the triggering condition ('once the close height has passed'), and explains the outcome ('the idle side wins'). It refers to being 'half of the market's settlement' but never names the counterpart tool or contrasts itself explicitly against siblings like atstake_redeem, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Clear preconditions: the close height must have passed and the coins must have failed to enter a bond before the deadline. It also clarifies why someone must call it ('nobody is paid until the status moves off open'), which is real usage guidance. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for the other settlement path or state what to do if the market is already resolved.

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