stacks_market_redeem

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

With no annotations, this description does real work: it discloses the unlocked-wallet requirement, the mainnet-only restriction, the payout currency (STX), and the resolved-market precondition. It stops short of stating idempotency, fee behavior, or what happens to losing shares, which matters for a value-moving claim.

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 action, precondition, and wallet/mainnet constraints come first in tight sentences. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is tangential cross-sell but brief and does not obscure the mechanic.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call-time facts an agent needs: wallet must be unlocked, mainnet only, market must be resolved, and STX is the payout. Missing return/error detail is the main residual gap.

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 the single market_id parameter is fully documented as an epoch-ms timestamp in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Redeem'), the exact resource ('winning shares'), and the protocol context ('Stacks Market prediction market'). Within the stacks_market_* family it is clearly the post-resolution claim action, distinct from buy/sell/quote siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to call it 'after the market has been resolved' and only for winning-side shares, which sets the triggering condition. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., what to call before resolution or how to check resolution status via stacks_market_get), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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