Challenge someone to a 1v1 on a take

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

Annotations only cover openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description must carry the rest — and it does: funds go into escrow on a named contract, the taker matches the stake, Chainlink settles, the return value is a shareable link, and there is a hard $25 test-dollar cap. These are exactly the side effects and limits an agent needs before committing a stake.

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 action and its consequences, then the return value, then the safety constraints, then the parameter mode switch — a sensible order. It is dense but long-ish; a couple of clauses (e.g. restating the Chainlink settlement) could be trimmed without loss.

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 six-parameter, fund-moving, open-world tool with no output schema, the description supplies the contract/escrow model, the $25 ceiling, the confirmation prerequisite, the mode selection rule, and what the return value is. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema cannot: it explains the mutual exclusivity of the two modes (take+match vs market), which is otherwise only implicit in the property descriptions. It does not elaborate on the side/opponent semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Bet a friend 1v1 on a football take') and immediately enumerates the concrete effects: posts the take, lists a market, escrows the stake. It also names the sibling that consumes its output (terrace_accept_challenge), so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Confirm the rule (terrace_preview_take) and the stake with the user first') and an explicit branching rule: 'Pass take and match for a new take, or market to challenge on an existing take market.' It also names the accepting counterpart tool, so when-to-use and what-happens-next are both unambiguous.

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