get_outcome_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the access profile ('Public read') plus meaningful behavioral context about the binary-market symmetry (Yes bid + No ask ≈ 1.0) and the round-trip efficiency. It omits pagination/rate-limit and error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the enumerated outputs; the binary-market example earns its place by clarifying the domain. Dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is pure 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does enumerate the view's contents and the market semantics. Combined with 100% schema coverage for parameters, the agent has enough to call it correctly, though it lacks any error or freshness caveats.

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 100% and both parameters (outcome, depth) are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual framing ('underlying mark price gap vs targetPrice') but no extra syntax or format meaning for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (combined view of one outcome market) and enumerates the components returned: all sides' books, mark price gap, time to expiry, and per-side implied probability. The 'all sides in parallel' and 'single round-trip' phrasing implicitly separates it from single-sided siblings like get_outcome_book, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied ('exposes both sides in a single round-trip and surfaces directional context') rather than stated as a when-to-use rule. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are given, so the agent must infer the scenario from the described output.

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