Quote 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 a solid job: it declares read-only behavior, explicitly states no transaction is built, and warns that parimutuel payouts shift with every later position so the estimate is not a fixed quote. It omits any note on auth/network prerequisites and does not say what the returned estimate 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?

Three tight sentences: what it does first, then the read-only clarification, then the volatility caveat. Nothing is repeated and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the behavioral profile — and it does, covering read-only status and the moving-estimate caveat. The only gap is the shape of the returned estimate, which an agent must discover by calling it.

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 100%, so side/amount/market are already documented with enum and format details. The description only restates that size and side feed the estimate, adding no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ("Estimate") and a precise resource ("what a YES or NO position of a given size would pay on a Bopster market if its side wins"), and identifies the chain (Base). The phrase "builds no transaction" separates it from the prepare_* siblings without requiring a schema look.

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 context is clear — this is a pre-trade estimate, and the note that it builds no transaction tells the agent it is not the execution path. It stops short of naming prepare_position as the tool to call when the user actually wants to place the stake, leaving the alternative to inference.

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