Collect winnings

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add semantics — which it does by naming the three payout buckets that get swept. It stops short of stating what happens when nothing is collectible or what the response contains, but the added scope detail is substantive.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the three payout categories listed compactly. No filler, no redundancy with title or annotations.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the definition tells the agent what will be collected, which is the key decision input. Missing only the return shape (e.g., total amount credited) or no-op behavior, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a full sweep of all eligible funds rather than any targeted selection.

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 ('pay out') plus the exact resources swept: settled 1v1s, finished market bets, and refunds for untaken challenges. This enumerates the payout categories precisely enough that an agent can distinguish it from siblings like terrace_my_bets or terrace_account without opening their 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?

The enumeration of what can be collected makes the triggering condition clear: call this when the user wants to realize winnings or reclaim stakes. No explicit 'when not to use' or sibling callout is given, but the sibling set has little overlap, so the context is unambiguous.

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