Hive Dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is observational only and does not judge, freeze, or enforce. It also mentions data sources and fallback mechanisms, providing good behavioral context. However, it omits details on rate limits, response time, or handling of addresses with no disputes.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is informative but slightly verbose with source enumeration. Overall, it is clear and relatively efficient, though could be trimmed without loss of meaning.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the data sources, the nature of the output (dispute history, arbitration cases, flags), and the tool's limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it does not detail the exact return format or error handling.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description repeats the schema info (address prefix, chain enum) without adding new meaning. It does add context about what the parameters are used for (counterparty address), but this does not exceed the schema's own 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 clearly states the tool's function: returning dispute history, arbitration cases, and reversal flags for a given address and chain. It specifies data sources (Kleros, UMA, Reality.eth) and explicitly distinguishes it from enforcement actions, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 usage for checking dispute history but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispute_providers or dispute_route. It notes the observational nature, which sets expectations, but lacks direct comparisons to siblings or conditions for when not to use it.

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

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

Without annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: it lists what the tool returns (case load, intake URLs, jurisdiction model) and clarifies what it does not include (Hive). This is sufficient for a read-only listing tool.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. The main action (list protocols) is front-loaded, and every part adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally mention whether the list is static or live, but the provided details (case load, intake URLs) imply dynamic data.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema (100% coverage trivially). The description adds significant meaning by detailing the output contents (protocols, case load, etc.), exceeding the baseline expectation of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states it lists available arbitration protocols with specific names (Kleros, UMA, Reality.eth) and details (case load, intake URLs, jurisdiction model). It contrasts with Hive, clearly distinguishing from siblings.

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 identifying and comparing arbitration providers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like dispute_check or dispute_route, nor does it include when-not or alternative conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states the tool does not automatically file and only returns options and intake URLs. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention if any side effects exist (e.g., logging).

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, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first describes inputs/outputs, the second clarifies a critical behavioral constraint. No filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It explains what the tool returns (ranked options and intake URLs) and what it does not do (automatic filing). Minor gap: no detail on ranking criteria or output structure, but for this tool it is sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description largely paraphrases the parameters ('given... case description, disputed amount... jurisdiction preference') without adding significant extra meaning or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: returning ranked arbitration provider options based on case details. It uses specific verbs ('return') and resources, and explicitly contrasts with 'NO automatic filing', which likely distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispute_check, dispute_providers, or dispute_today. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only aggregation (rollup) but fails to disclose data sources, freshness, permission requirements, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core output (counts and top providers). However, it lacks details on scope, format, time resolution, and limitations, leaving some ambiguity for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema is empty, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (flagged-counterparty count and top providers), which is not derivable from the schema alone. It could be more detailed but is already helpful.

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 that the tool provides a '24-hour rollup' with specific aggregations: 'flagged-counterparty count' and 'top arbitration providers by active case load'. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dispute_check, dispute_providers, and dispute_route.

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 usage for daily overviews via '24-hour rollup', but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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