get_intel_resolution_forecast

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 0.005 SOL cost and x402 payment protocol, which is critical behavioral information. However, it does not describe the response format or other potential behaviors like rate limiting or failure modes.

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 description is a single, focused sentence of about 14 words. It front-loads the purpose and adds cost information without any redundant or filler content.

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 paid tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, cost, and included output fields. The payment_tx parameter description in the schema adds the omit-for-pricing behavior. It lacks details on return structure or error handling, but is largely adequate given the schema richness.

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% as both 'market' and 'payment_tx' have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it only restates the purpose without detailing how the parameters are used beyond what the schema already states.

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 description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'resolution forecast', listing concrete outputs (closing time, tier, implied probability, prediction). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_resolution_status, which likely returns current status rather than a forecast.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining resolution forecasts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_intel_market_alpha or get_resolution_status. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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