stacks_market_sell_no

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses the entrypoint used, the hard failure condition on insufficient proceeds, the wallet-state requirement, and a network restriction. It still omits the irreversibility of the sale, fee treatment, and what a successful call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 is front-loaded in the first line, preconditions and failure behavior follow, and there is no redundancy. The closing 'Tip' pointing at earning_opportunities is tangential to executing this trade and slightly 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, irreversible state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and failure mode but says nothing about what is returned (transaction id? receipt?), fees, or whether the caller must already hold the NO shares. That is enough to attempt the call but not enough to be confident about its effect.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an increment by explaining the consequence of min_proceeds_ustx ('the transaction will fail if proceeds fall below'), which the schema only labels as slippage protection. It adds no meaning for market_id or shares beyond the schema text.

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 ('Sell NO shares in a Stacks Market prediction market') and names the underlying contract function (sell-no-auto). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling stacks_market_sell_yes and the buy-side tools 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?

Gives concrete preconditions: unlocked wallet required, mainnet only, and a slippage floor that will abort the transaction. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. stacks_market_quote_sell for price discovery first, or sell_yes/buy_no for the opposite action), so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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