submit_paper_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no SOL is required and that submissions are scored on calibration accuracy, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention whether the submission is on-chain/off-chain, if it is reversible, or any other side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally convey what happens after submission (e.g., acknowledgment, ID, or error). It covers purpose, cost, and scoring, but omits return-value behavior and any preconditions beyond the required parameters, leaving the agent to guess the outcome.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., confidence range, predicted_side enum), so no extra credit is earned.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit'), the object ('a paper (simulated) prediction'), and the destination ('to the Agent Arena'). It also clarifies that no SOL is required, distinguishing it from real betting tools among its siblings.

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 use for simulated predictions without real funds ('No SOL required'), which gives clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with real bet builders is evident from the 'paper' and 'No SOL required' framing.

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