bet

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds useful cost calculation formula (shares * price) indicating financial commitment, but omits return value structure, error conditions (e.g., insufficient funds), idempotency, or whether bets can be cancelled via the 'cancel' sibling.

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?

Two sentences total with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides critical cost information. Efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized for the parameter complexity.

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?

With 4 simple parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers basics adequately. However, for a financial mutation tool with no output schema, it lacks explanation of return values (e.g., bet ID, confirmation), success/failure signals, or post-bet state changes.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable semantic relationship between 'price' and 'shares' via the cost formula, helping users understand how parameters interact to determine financial outlay.

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?

Clear verb 'Place' and resource 'bet' with domain 'prediction market' specified. However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'arena' or 'market' that might overlap conceptually.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'arena' or 'cancel', nor any prerequisites (e.g., registration, balance requirements) mentioned.

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