split_position

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral detail: execution is gasless, it never falls back to a gas-paying broadcast, and dry-run is the default mode. This tells an agent exactly what side effects to expect and how failures or fallbacks will behave.

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?

Four short sentences each carry distinct information: the action, the parameter format, the required keys, and the dry-run/no-fallback safety behavior. There is no fluff, and the most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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 key operational context such as API keys, gasless execution, and dry-run behavior. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the required condition_id parameter, the agent must guess that parameter's meaning and what the dry-run invocation returns. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 explain the parameters itself. It explains amount_usdc with an example ('collateral in USDC e.g. 25') but says nothing at all about condition_id, which is a required parameter. This leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 names a precise action ('Split USDC collateral into a full YES+NO share set') and ties it to a specific venue and mechanism (Polymarket's gasless relayer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_positions and redeem_positions without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 strong context for correct use: it operates on one market, requires specific API keys, and is dry-run by default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the conditions for using it are concrete and unambiguous.

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