get_resolution_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the possible return values (resolved, disputed, pending), which is helpful, but it does not mention potential outcomes like unknown/invalid markets, whether it is read-only, or any error/edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool with one parameter.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing the possible statuses. It could be more complete by mentioning whether the status is returned as a string or whether a market not in a resolution state yields a specific value, but it is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% with the 'market' parameter already described as 'Market public key'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 'for a market', so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resolution status for a market') and lists the possible statuses (resolved, disputed, pending). It clearly distinguishes this single-market status lookup from sibling tools like get_disputed_markets or get_market.

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 usage: call this when you need the resolution status of a specific market. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_market, get_disputed_markets, or get_markets_awaiting_resolution.

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