bet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states the action and cost formula. It does not mention funds being deducted, whether the bet is final, how it resolves, or that registration may be required. For a financial mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the cost formula earns its place. It is efficient, scannable, and appropriately sized for the tool.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and involves a consequential financial action. The description omits expected return values, error conditions, whether the order fills immediately, and how to determine available funds or cancel. Too much is left unstated for safe 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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds the crucial relationship 'Cost = shares * price', which is not present in the schema and tells the agent how shares and price combine into the transaction cost.

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 uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('a prediction market'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. It clearly stands apart from siblings like 'market', 'status', and 'cancel', none of which perform the betting action. The cost formula adds further specificity.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'market' for viewing odds, 'cancel' for undoing a bet, or 'status' for checking position. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternative tool references, so an agent receives no decision support.

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