Prediction-market odds read

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent). The description adds cost ($0.09 USDC via x402 on Base), billing semantics ('settles only on success'), non-trivial latency (10–180 s), and an explicit untrusted-data handling instruction — exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 doing distinct work: payload scope, price and billing, latency, trust/disclaimer. Front-loaded with what the tool returns; no 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?

With one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call: content, cost, latency, billing conditions, and trust posture. Minor gap: no guidance on what a partial or empty odds response looks like, or freshness of the crowd-positioning data.

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?

The schema documents the single parameter at 100% coverage ('One ticker, e.g. BTC'), so semantics are already handled. The description only restates 'one asset' without adding ticker format or normalization rules beyond the schema's example.

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?

Names a specific verb-like resource ('Prediction-market odds context for one asset') and enumerates what comes back: key markets, implied probabilities, crowd positioning. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like vedetta_prediction or vedetta_consensus only implicitly — no sibling is named.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite 20 sibling tools including vedetta_prediction and vedetta_consensus that plausibly overlap. The only framing is 'Descriptive research, not financial advice', which is a disclaimer rather than usage guidance.

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