redeem_positions

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

The annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: 'GASLESS via the relayer', 'Needs the operator's relayer key', and 'DRY-RUN by default'. These traits are not visible in the schema or annotations, and the description does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the parameter rule, then the key requirement and default behavior. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 description covers purpose, parameter exclusivity, the required relayer key, and dry-run default, which is a solid base. However, with no output schema, it does not hint at what the tool returns or how success is signaled, and it does not explain how to move from a dry run to an actual redemption. This leaves an agent uncertain about the full execution flow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly addresses the most important parameter ambiguity by saying 'Pass exactly one of condition_id or market_id', which is crucial because both parameters are optional in the schema. It does not provide deeper format or example details, but for two self-explanatory ID parameters this is reasonably sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Redeem the winning shares'), a specific resource (RESOLVED market), and the output (USDC), with the gasless relayer detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redeemable_positions, which would be about identifying redeemable positions rather than executing redemption.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a market is RESOLVED and you hold winning shares. It also gives an important operating condition ('Pass exactly one of condition_id or market_id') and flags dry-run behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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