stacks_market_buy_yes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the on-chain function invoked, that slippage protection is enforced by a hard cap, that the transaction aborts if the cap is exceeded, and that an unlocked wallet plus mainnet are required. It does not say whether the call signs and broadcasts automatically or whether spending is irreversible, which would complete the mutation picture.

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 mechanics are front-loaded in three tight lines covering action, slippage mechanism, and prerequisites. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional and does not help an agent invoke this tool, so it dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisites, the failure mode, and the contract path an agent needs to avoid a footgun. It stops short of describing what a successful call returns (transaction ID, broadcast vs. signed payload), which an agent would still need to know.

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 all four parameters including the micro-STX units are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the max_cost_ustx slippage role but adds no unit, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema and its 'use current market cap from stacks_market_get' note already provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Buy YES shares in a Stacks Market prediction market') and names the underlying contract function (buy-yes-auto). The YES-side qualifier inherently separates it from the buy_no/sell_yes/sell_no siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives preconditions (unlocked wallet, mainnet only) and a failure condition (cost above max_cost_ustx), which is useful context. But it never routes the agent between this tool and stacks_market_quote_buy, stacks_market_buy_no, or stacks_market_get for pricing, so the choice of tool is left to inference.

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