File a dispute over an escrow. Opens the evidence window. Parties must be distinct; amount is in minor currency units (cents).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claimant | Yes | ||
| escrow_id | Yes | ||
| respondent | Yes | ||
| amount_minor | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions 'opens the evidence window' but omits side effects, reversibility, or permissions needed for a potentially destructive action.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words.
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?
Given output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the action's complexity (dispute filing) warrants more context on prerequisites and side effects.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains amount_minor unit and distinct party requirement, but fails to define escrow_id, claimant, respondent beyond the property name.
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 action ('File a dispute over an escrow') and the resource ('escrow'), with a distinct purpose from siblings like get_case or list_cases.
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?
It mentions parties must be distinct and amount in cents, but lacks when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., submit_evidence) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: filing cases, querying, submitting evidence, setting trust scores, ruling, and verifying. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., file_case, get_case, submit_evidence). Even 'rule' is a concise verb that fits the pattern.
8 tools is well-scoped for an arbitration server: covers filing, evidence, trust, ruling, verification, and querying. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers the full arbitration lifecycle: case creation, evidence submission, trust score input, ruling, verification, and case listing/retrieval. No obvious gaps.