Hive Trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fee auto-computation and that selection happens at creation, but omits side effects, prerequisites, or post-creation behavior, leaving the agent without a complete picture for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb, and contains no wasted words or redundant details. It earns a top score for efficiency and structure.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but lacks details on lifecycle, return values, or failure modes. The rich schema compensates for parameter detail, making it moderately complete but not fully self-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 the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds context about fee tiering and cross-border scope, but does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema 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 action: 'Create a cross-border invoice,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get, dispute, fees, listing) by focusing on creation and specifying the key selection criteria (DIDs, amount, currency, chain).

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 creating new invoices, and the sibling names clearly indicate read/dispute/fee tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full 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 discloses key behavioral traits: escalation to HiveLaw arbitration if unresolved, and settlement held in escrow until resolution. This goes beyond a simple 'open a dispute' and gives the agent useful expectations about side effects, though it does not cover all possible nuances like cancellation or permissions.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that lead with the main action and then provide essential process context. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the overall workflow adequately: initiating a dispute, escalation, and escrow. It does not explain the immediate return value or any preconditions, but the included context is valuable and largely sufficient for a straightforward dispute initiation action.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Open a dispute on an invoice') and the resource (invoice). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trade_create_invoice and trade_get_invoice by focusing on dispute resolution, not creation or retrieval.

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 about when this tool is used (when a buyer and supplier have a dispute that they cannot resolve) and what happens next (routing to HiveLaw arbitration, escrow). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an AI to select it over the sibling tools.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns: the fee schedule, comparison details, FX spreads, and settlement times. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful detail about the scope of the data, though it does not mention authentication or side effects (which are likely unnecessary for a read-only fee lookup).

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds specific comparative details. 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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description is complete enough by explicitly listing the return content: cross-border invoice fee schedule, SWIFT wire comparison, FX spreads, and settlement times. Since the tool has no inputs, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know.

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 the baseline per rubric is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the output content.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: cross-border invoice fee schedule and SWIFT wire comparison. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fee-related data (Hive vs. typical SMB wire fees, FX spreads, settlement times), not invoice creation, disputes, or listings.

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 when fee schedule or SWIFT comparison information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough to infer context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is read-only ('Retrieve') and specifies the data returned (status, settlement hash, dispute history), but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific data points. 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns (status, settlement hash, dispute history). It lacks explicit usage guidance or error/edge-case context, but given the low complexity, it is near-complete. A minor addition about when to use it would make it perfect.

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 schema already provides a description for invoice_id ('Invoice ID returned from trade_create_invoice'), and the parameter coverage is 100%. The description text adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves invoice-related data (status, settlement transaction hash, dispute history) using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like trade_create_invoice (creation) and trade_dispute_invoice (dispute action) by focusing on retrieval of invoice details.

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 fetching invoice information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or an explicit alternative like trade_get_listing for broader searches. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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 the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies that the data is 'public listing metadata', which implies safe, read-only behavior. It also discloses the specific data elements returned, offering useful behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

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, focused sentence that lists the key output fields without any redundancy or irrelevant details. Every word contributes value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose and return contents, which is adequate for a zero-parameter read tool. However, it does not specify which listing is being referred to (implicit context), nor does it describe the return format or any potential edge cases. Given the empty schema and no output schema, a slight clarification would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is not a concern. The baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It appropriately focuses on the return content instead.

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 'Get' with a clear resource ('public listing metadata') and enumerates the exact contents (target user, fee schedule, settlement currencies/chains, cumulative volume, council origin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trade_get_fees and trade_get_invoice, which target different resources.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need public listing metadata with the specified fields. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the specificity of the description provide clear context for the intended use case.

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