split_shares

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact conversion ratio and that the split is equal. This is useful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides (which only lists parameters).

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action and essential detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple split operation with two well-documented parameters. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but given no output schema and low complexity, minimal gaps exist.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning: it clarifies that 'amount' is in microunits and provides the conversion example (1000000 = $1.00). This exceeds schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('USDC into equal YES and NO outcome tokens'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like merge_shares. It also provides a concrete conversion rate (1 USDC = 1 YES + 1 NO).

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 implies the tool is for creating outcome tokens from USDC but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to split vs merge). No exclusions or context triggers are provided.

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