stacks_market_quote_sell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return unit ('proceeds in micro-STX') and the mainnet-only constraint, but it never explicitly states the call is non-mutating/read-only, nor whether the quote expires or is subject to slippage before execution.

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?

Front-loaded and short: the core purpose and return unit occupy the first two sentences. However, the trailing 'Tip: call `earning_opportunities`...' is off-topic advertising that does not help an agent decide how to call this specific tool and dilutes an otherwise tight 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 read-only quote tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return unit, and a network constraint. It still omits how the quote relates to the actual sell call (staleness/validity, whether it must be passed to the sell tool), which is the most likely agent question.

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% and all three params are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Side: 0 = YES, 1 = NO' merely repeats the schema's enum description, and it adds nothing about `shares` units beyond what the schema already says (integer, smallest unit), so there is no lift beyond structured data.

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: 'Get an LMSR sell price quote for YES or NO shares on a Stacks Market prediction market.' The word 'quote' plus 'Returns the proceeds' makes clear this is a pricing preview, which implicitly separates it from stacks_market_sell_yes/sell_no, though it never names those execution siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'quote' suggests calling this before selling, but the description never says to use it ahead of stacks_market_sell_yes/stacks_market_sell_no nor contrasts it with stacks_market_quote_buy. The only explicit usage guidance is the mainnet-only availability note and an unrelated cross-sell tip pointing to `earning_opportunities`.

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