Prepare a Bopster position

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 two-step transaction structure (exact-amount approval then position), the validation checks performed, and the non-custodial model (server never holds keys, never sends; agent's wallet signs and sends in order). It stops short of describing failure modes or what the returned payload looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the chain, followed by the behavioral guarantees. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 mutation-adjacent prepare tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers chain, transaction sequence, validation, and custody model. The main remaining gap is the shape of the return value (ordered list of unsigned transactions?), which an agent must infer from 'signs and sends the transactions in order'.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the whole-token-units amount and the wallet-vs-market address distinction. The description adds one useful nuance — the approval is for an *exact* amount rather than an unlimited allowance — but provides no further per-parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact ('Build the unsigned transactions') plus the exact resource and scope ('take a YES or NO position on a Bopster market on Base'). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_market, quote_position, and from other prepare_* tools (claim, finalize, market_launch).

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 a clear context for use: the agent has already chosen a market and side and needs transactions it will sign. It also states the preconditions the tool validates (market open, real Bopster market, sufficient wallet balance), which implicitly tells the agent it need not pre-check those. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as quote_position for pricing or explain ordering against prepare_claim/prepare_finalize.

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