Prepare a Bopster market launch

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 that the tool reads a confirmed transaction, verifies exact matchup against the draft, returns an unsigned transaction, and is non-custodial ('nothing is signed or sent here'). It does not cover failure behavior on mismatch, fees, or idempotency, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The workflow step is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, verification behavior, return value, and non-custodial note. Every sentence earns its place and no space is wasted.

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 7-required-parameter preparation tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (an unsigned createMarket transaction) and how verification works. It is nearly complete, though it could note what happens when verification fails or what the caller should do next with the returned transaction.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance guidance beyond the schema by instructing that `next.arguments` be passed unchanged and that the question tx hash be supplied alongside it. It reinforces the relationship between the draft token and prior tool output without restating every field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a Bopster market launch') and precisely locates it as step 3 of the creation flow. It distinguishes itself from prepare_market_question by making clear that it only launches drafts that tool built.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only launches drafts prepare_market_question built' and tells the caller to pass that tool's `next.arguments` unchanged, plus the question tx hash. This gives a clear prerequisite and alternative routing rule with no inference required.

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