Look up tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: resolving by condition_ids fans out to "every token of some markets" and includes derived fields like opposite token and neg-risk structure. It stops short of disclosing fan-out volume, whether both parameters can be combined, or any limits beyond the schema's maxItems.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resolve action and its outputs, with the parameter instruction at the end. There is no filler, though the closing imperative reads abruptly and could have carried the parameter relationship more clearly at no extra length.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shape in depth, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the semantic distinction between the two id types and the both-provided/both-empty case, which matters because the parameters have no schema descriptions at all.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it names token_ids and condition_ids and frames them as alternatives, but never explains what a condition id is relative to a token id, nor what happens when both are passed or when both are null. The maxItems caps (50 tokens / 10 conditions) are left entirely to the schema.

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 ("Resolve") and resource (token ids / tokens of markets) and enumerates what each id maps to (outcome, opposite token, market, event, neg-risk structure, settlement). An agent can immediately tell this is an id-to-entity resolution tool rather than a market/event fetcher. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_market, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Give token_ids or condition_ids" communicates the two entry paths and implies they are alternatives, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement about when to prefer this over get_market/get_event, no note on what happens if both are supplied, and no guidance on cost/size when resolving every token of a market.

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