dispute_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output includes a score and 'transparent reasons', but it does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It implies a read operation but never explicitly states it. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the premium signal label. It conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. It could benefit from a bit more detail on the parameter, but as far as conciseness, it scores well.

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?

While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description remains incomplete. It fails to explain the input parameter, any prerequisites, or access constraints (as it's a 'premium signal'). For a tool with one required parameter and zero schema coverage, the description should provide much more context to enable correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the lone parameter 'id_or_slug' is completely unexplained in the description. The description mentions 'a market's resolution' but does not clarify what id_or_slug refers to (e.g., is it a market ID or slug format?). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, making it impossible to know how to fill the required field correctly.

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: it 'scores 0-100 how likely a market's resolution gets contested' and specifically mentions 'UMA dispute risk'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or search_markets, which serve different purposes. The verb 'scores' and resource 'market's resolution' are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The only contextual hint is 'PREMIUM SIGNAL', which is not a usage guideline. There is no indication of when this should be preferred over other market-related tools.

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