stacks_market_buy_no

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key traits: slippage protection via a max-cost cap, an explicit failure mode ('transaction will fail if the cost exceeds max_cost_ustx'), and the mainnet plus unlocked-wallet requirements. It stops short of describing the on-chain side effects or what a successful call returns.

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 content — action, slippage mechanism, failure condition, prerequisites — is front-loaded and tight. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional copy that 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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the failure mode and the preconditions an agent needs before spending funds. It could say more about the result of a successful transaction (tx id, position update), which is the one gap left.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the slippage cap and the target cap are already documented at the parameter level. The description adds only the failure consequence of max_cost_ustx and the underlying contract function name, which is marginal extra value over the schema.

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 and target: 'Buy NO shares in a Stacks Market prediction market.' That explicit 'NO' distinguishes it cleanly from stacks_market_buy_yes and from the sell variants without opening any 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 real preconditions (unlocked wallet, mainnet only) but never says when to prefer this over stacks_market_buy_yes, when to quote first, or when not to use it. The 'call stacks_market_get for current cap' guidance lives only in the schema, so the description leaves the choice of sibling to inference.

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