claim

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses key behavioral traits: winning tokens redeem at 1:1 USDC, losing tokens are burned. This is critical beyond the schema, as it informs the agent of the financial impact. No contradictions with annotations (none provided). It could further mention irreversibility or fee implications, but the provided info is substantial.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by outcome details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple claim tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: resolved market, outcome token redemption, and outcome consequences. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could explicitly mention the prerequisite of owning outcome tokens.

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 the description adds no new parameter information. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., amount is in microunits, assetId is the outcome token ASA ID). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Claim', the resource 'USDC', and the method 'by redeeming outcome tokens'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings (e.g., merge_shares, split_shares) by specifying the context of a resolved market and the outcome of winning vs losing tokens.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'from a resolved market'. It implies that the user must hold outcome tokens to redeem, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for related operations (e.g., splitting or merging shares before claiming).

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