prediction_market_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.08 x402/USDC-on-Base cost, the configured Kelly parameters (α=0.75, conf_exp=1.0), and that market filter rules may skip or boost categories, which materially changes output. It omits auth/wallet requirements for x402 and the shape of what is returned.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The 'no performance improvement is guaranteed' disclaimer earns its place, though the sentence packs α/conf_exp, filter rules, and payment into a jargon-heavy block.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, configuration, filtering behavior, and a risk disclaimer. The main gap is that the returned value (e.g., position size/fraction) is never characterized.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect context – the Kelly parameters and category filter behavior that 'category' feeds into – without explaining units or formats beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Kelly-optimal position sizing for a prediction market trade.' This is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like estimate/scan/ensemble/info, though the description never names or contrasts those alternatives 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 is only implied: sizing logically follows an estimate, and the schema notes inputs 'typically from prediction_market_estimate.' The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or transition guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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