Hive Evaluator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary on-chain effects (settlement and attestation), the destination treasury, and a required signature. It does not cover failure modes, reversibility, or return values, but provides substantial transparency beyond a minimal update call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and succinctly covering destination and requirements. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff.

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?

The description captures the essential behavior, destination, and prerequisite. It lacks details on return values or confirmation mechanics, but for a simple 2-parameter transactional tool without an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the signature requirement and adds chain context ('chain selected at submission'), but does not add new meaning about the parameters themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger settlement and emit the on-chain attestation') and clearly identifies the resource ('a completed job'). This distinct action contrasts with sibling tools like evaluator_submit_job and evaluator_get_job, making its purpose 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?

It states the tool is for 'a completed job' and notes 'Requires EIP-3009 signature for Base/Ethereum', providing clear context on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that no authentication is needed, that the data is live, and what the response contains (tiers, currencies, addresses, spec). It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and describes the return scope, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter fetch.

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 that states the purpose and key details without redundancy. The parenthetical list of content elements is compact and relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It specifies what will be returned (fee schedule with tiers, currencies, addresses) and the operational requirement (no auth), making it fully self-contained.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds value by explaining what the (absent) input context is—none needed. It doesn't need to describe parameters, so it earns the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the live evaluator fee schedule'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (which deal with job lifecycle) by focusing on the fee schedule, and provides useful detail about the contents (3 tiers, currencies, addresses, spec).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the live fee schedule. It explicitly notes 'No auth required', which is a helpful prerequisite. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data (status, verdict, attestation), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior if the job is not yet complete. This is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic read operation.

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 that concisely states the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description is functionally complete in listing what it returns and that it is for previously submitted jobs. However, it omits usage context such as sequencing with sibling tools, any preconditions like job completion, and does not describe the return format (since no output schema exists). There are clear gaps in operational guidance.

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%, and the schema already documents job_id as 'Job ID returned from evaluator_submit_job.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'evaluation status, verdict, and attestation for a previously-submitted job.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluator_submit_job (submission) and evaluator_attest_job (attestation), making its purpose 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?

The phrase 'for a previously-submitted job' implies that this tool is used after evaluator_submit_job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it as opposed to siblings like evaluator_get_fees or evaluator_attest_job. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the fee formula and the return values, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., job persistence, triggering evaluation), permission requirements, or whether the submission is reversible, leaving some behavior undefined.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and tier choices, the second provides fee calculation and return expectations. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to choose tiers, how fees are computed, and what it returns. It lacks explicit error-handling or next-step guidance, but given the surrounding sibling tools, the context is reasonably complete.

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?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description enhances the semantics by explaining the fee formula (max($0.05, value * tier_bps / 10000)) and explicitly tying tier to the fee percentages. This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, especially for tier and job_value_usdc.

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 identifies the action ('Submit a job for evaluation') and the resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (attest, get_fees, get_job) by focusing on the submission workflow. It also mentions the tier options and fee computation, which are specific to this tool.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to submit an evaluation job) and details the tier selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools (e.g., using evaluator_get_job to check status), so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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