Register a new Bopster market

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 backend notification side effect, that the backend re-reads state from the chain, and that the operation is non-critical because the indexer would eventually catch up. Missing are failure modes (e.g., unknown or unconfirmed tx_hash) and any idempotency statement about re-registering the same market.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the workflow position, then the effect, then the caveat. The final sentence is justification rather than instruction but still earns its place by telling the agent the call is optional and safe to skip.

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 output schema exists, so the description correctly names the return ('the new market and its link'). For a single-parameter, side-effecting registration tool with no annotations, the important behavioral facts are covered; only error handling and repeat-call semantics are absent.

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% and the single parameter already documents the expected hash format via pattern and description. The description adds only that the transaction must be confirmed, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs and resources: reads the confirmed createMarket transaction, returns the new market and its link, and notifies the Bopster backend. The 'Step 4 of creating a Bopster market' framing positions it in the workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling sync_market, which is the main residual ambiguity.

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?

'Step 4 of creating a Bopster market' clearly places it after the createMarket transaction is confirmed. The closing sentence signals it is an optional optimization ('its indexer would find it anyway; this only saves the wait'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition.

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