Issue the deterministic ruling: allocates 100% of the disputed amount from evidence weights + trust scores, and emits an escrow instruction (release/refund). Exactly-once — re-ruling returns the existing ruling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses deterministic nature, allocation from evidence weights/trust scores, escrow emission, and idempotency of re-ruling. This is good but could mention side effects like state mutation more explicitly.
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, no redundant information, efficient and front-loaded with key purpose.
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?
Covers main action and idempotency but lacks prerequisites (e.g., evidence and trust scores must be set). Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.
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?
Single parameter 'case_id' is not described beyond its name. Description adds no meaning about the format, source, or constraints of case_id, relying solely on 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?
Description clearly states it issues a deterministic ruling, allocates disputed amount, and emits escrow instruction. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying exactly-once behavior and that re-ruling returns the existing ruling.
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?
Implicitly says to use once per case due to exactly-once semantics. However, does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like verify_ruling or when not to use.
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.