getPredictionEngineStatus

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly indicates this is a query (read-only) operation by using 'Query' and describing checking before actions. It transparently states the consequence of unavailability (orders cannot be submitted). While it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects,' the verb and context strongly imply idempotence and safety.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, consequence, agent instruction, and a hint. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, why it matters (blocking orders), and how to act on the result (inform user, do not proceed). It implies the response includes an 'available' boolean, sufficient for an agent to interpret. Fully complete for this simple status tool.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (unnecessary). It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. No further parameter semantics are required.

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 explicitly states 'Query whether the prediction market matching engine is currently available,' using a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('engine availability'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling trading and market data tools by focusing solely on engine status.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'AI agent should check engine status before attempting to place orders' and 'If the engine is unavailable, inform the user and do not proceed with trading.' It also includes a direct agent hint to call this before placing any buy/sell order, clearly defining when to use it and what to do based on the result.

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