Prepare a Bopster market question

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 the validation layer (site, backend and factory rules), the IPFS metadata pinning side effect, the exact return artifact, and the absence of signing/broadcast. It stops short of stating failure behaviour, idempotency, or what happens if validation fails, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: sequence, input constraint, processing/validation, output and safety boundary. The step number and the template restriction are front-loaded before the behavioural detail, and no sentence is redundant with the 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 12-parameter, 9-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it produces (unsigned transaction), what it costs side-effect-wise (IPFS pin, nothing sent), and the hard input constraint. Authentication mechanics are delegated to the schema's wallet/nonce/signature descriptions, which is acceptable, though a sentence on ordering relative to sibling steps would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented, including the template oneOf branches and their per-field constraints. The description adds only the framing that the template must be one of the five named shapes with site-exact wording, which is a modest gloss on what the schema already enforces.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource statement: it names the step (2 of creating a Bopster market), the constrained input space (five templates, no free-text), and the concrete outcome (validation, IPFS pinning, unsigned Reality.eth askQuestion transaction). An agent can distinguish this from prepare_market_launch and register_market because it is the question-preparation step that produces an unsigned tx rather than launching or registering anything.

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 establishes clear sequencing ('Step 2 of creating a Bopster market') and an exclusion ('free-text questions are not accepted'), and clarifies the non-custodial boundary ('nothing is signed or sent here'). It does not name the sibling tools that come before or after (get_login_message, prepare_market_launch, register_market), so the agent must infer the workflow edges from the sibling list rather than being routed explicitly.

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