stacks_market_sell_yes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the guard semantics ("The transaction will fail if proceeds fall below min_proceeds_ustx"), the auth prerequisite (unlocked wallet), and a network restriction (mainnet only). It stops short of stating that this is an irreversible on-chain state mutation or what the response contains.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the guard behavior and prerequisites in two tight lines. The trailing "Tip" about earning_opportunities is tangential to executing this trade but is short enough not to obstruct the agent.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision inputs: wallet state, network, and the slippage failure condition. It could still say whether a transaction hash is returned or recommend quoting first, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of min_proceeds_ustx — it is an enforced revert condition, not merely an advisory field. The shares and market_id parameters are left entirely to 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource pair ("Sell YES shares in a Stacks Market prediction market") and names the underlying contract function (sell-yes-auto), so the agent knows exactly what executes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby siblings stacks_market_buy_yes, stacks_market_sell_no, or stacks_market_quote_sell, relying on the tool name to do that work.

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?

Preconditions are stated clearly (unlocked wallet required, mainnet only), which tells the agent when the call can succeed. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over stacks_market_quote_sell for previewing, or when to use sell_no instead, and no mention of what to do if the wallet is locked. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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