validate_bet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' implies a read-only check, but it does not state what happens on invalid parameters (e.g., throws an error, returns a boolean), whether it has side effects, or what the output format is. This lack of detail is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and usage timing. Every word is meaningful and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 simple validation tool with fully described parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what the tool returns or how errors are surfaced. Still, the simplicity and clear 'before building transaction' context make it adequate for basic usage.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The phrase 'bet parameters' adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function: 'Validate bet parameters before building transaction.' It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('bet parameters'), and the 'before building transaction' phrase distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'build_bet_transaction' and 'validate_market_params'.

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 gives clear context by specifying when to use it: 'before building transaction.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it is a pre-flight check for bet creation, which adequately differentiates it from validation of market parameters.

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