My Terrace bets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that results cover two categories and indicate collectibility, but it does not clarify whether resolved/historical bets are included, whether results are paginated, or how 'this account' is determined.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler. The grammar is slightly awkward ('and which can be collected'), but it remains compact and readable.

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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It states the high-level categories and the collectible flag but does not describe the shape of the results or whether open, settled, or historical bets are included.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 identifies a specific resource: this account's 1v1 challenges and market bets, plus which are collectible. The retrieval verb is only implied, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from general sibling tools like terrace_challenge_details and terrace_open_takes.

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 implied as a read of the current account's bets, and the phrase 'which can be collected' hints at a follow-up collection action. However, it never explicitly names terrace_collect as the next tool or states when to use this versus terrace_account or terrace_challenge_details.

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