Submit evidence while the case is open. kind: delivery_proof (weight 3), log (2), or statement (1). Only the named parties may submit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| party | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes | ||
| content | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at behavior (e.g., when to submit, who can submit). It does not disclose outcomes, side effects, or safety considerations of the submission.
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 two efficient sentences that are front-loaded with essential information, containing no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Despite having 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks detail on most parameters (content, party, case_id) and does not explain return values or side effects. It feels incomplete for a submission tool.
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%, but the description adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter by listing possible values and their weights. However, other parameters like case_id, party, and content are unexplained.
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 ('Submit evidence') and the resource ('while the case is open'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like file_case by specifying the evidence kinds and party restrictions.
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 provides some usage context by stating the condition 'while the case is open' and who may submit ('only the named parties'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.
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.