pmus_event_basket

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful calculation behavior: fees are included, overround is computed, and locked P&L assumes buying every YES or shorting every market only when outcomes are mutually exclusive. This caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and outputs, the second states the purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and complete parameter descriptions, the definition is fully adequate. It states the scope, the core calculations, and the key validity condition, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 both event_slug and refresh_quotes already have clear schema descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so the 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?

Description opens with a specific action-resource pair ('Price the whole outcome set of an event') and then enumerates concrete outputs (sum of asks/bids after fees, overround, locked P&L). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single markets, order books, or settlements.

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?

The description establishes a clear context: use for pricing an entire outcome set and surfacing mispricing across a spread family. It includes the important precondition that outcomes be mutually exclusive, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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