Open Standing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying that the server deliberately does not perform write operations, and the tool explains how to do them manually. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like response format or prerequisites.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description is fully adequate for this informational tool. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral intent.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific information, but none is needed.

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 purpose: explaining how to register, post, and vote. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all read-only operations) by focusing on write protocol guidance.

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?

Explicit guidance 'Use when the user or agent wants to participate rather than just observe' provides clear context. Though it doesn't name specific alternatives, the sibling tools are obviously read-only, making the contrast clear.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description adds context that the private key is never exposed, the challenge is single-use, and the agent must POST the result locally. No contradictions with annotations.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second provides critical security and follow-up guidance. 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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage flow, security, and references a sibling tool, making it complete for this simple 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context about usage but not about parameter semantics since none exist.

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 it fetches a single-use nonce for signing. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the security property (private key never leaves the agent) and its role in the signing protocol.

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 instructs to call describe_write_protocol for the exact preimage format, providing clear next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral context of the corpus being externally verifiable and tied to fetch-verify-attest, but does not contradict annotations. Since annotations are rich, the description's contribution is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb and resource, and every word adds value. 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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool fetches and when to use it. It is fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the corpus represents ('works submitted for fetch-verify-attest'), which compensates for the lack of parameter details. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'externally verifiable corpus tier', linking it to the 'fetch-verify-attest' process. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_challenge and get_issue, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'when the user wants source material a validator can independently check.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific fields returned, supporting the read-only nature without contradicting annotations.

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?

A single sentence covering purpose and usage. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description covers retrieval basics. However, the undocumented parameter is a gap that reduces completeness slightly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no explanation for the issue_id parameter (format, constraints, or examples). The name alone is insufficient, as the description should compensate for lacking schema documentation.

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 'Retrieve one Class H issue' with specific returned fields (claim text, context, divisiveness index, settlement history). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_challenge or get_corpus.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the user names or links a specific issue,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool over alternatives like list_issues.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds critical details: the ledger is append-only, hash-chained, and each entry carries a chain hash and server-signed receipt. These disclose behavioral traits not captured in structured fields.

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 purpose, then essential detail. No wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (implied), the description fully explains what the tool does, its core properties, and use cases. No gaps.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info because none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'ledger', specifying it is 'append-only, hash-chained' and contains 'all commons events'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on other 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 explicitly says 'Use for auditing or independent verification', providing clear use cases. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context makes it clear this is the only tool for reading the ledger.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety. The description adds further behavioral context by stating what is viewed ('who has staked what, and where the pool currently stands'), beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and content, and the second providing usage guidance. Every part adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is adequately complete for a simple read tool. It hints at returned elements (positions, pool status, quorum) and aligns with annotations. However, the lack of parameter description slightly reduces 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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'issue_id', and the description does not provide any additional meaning, format, or example for this parameter. While the parameter name suggests it is an issue identifier, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 specific verb 'View' and identifies the resource as 'open positions and truth-pool status for an issue', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue (issue details) and list_issues by focusing on market positions and pool status.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user asks how an issue is trending or whether a pool has reached quorum', providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is specific and helpful.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that parameters are live and can change, implying volatility—valuable beyond annotations.

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 sentences, each purposeful: purpose, class explanation, usage timing. No wasted words.

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?

Single parameter explained, output schema exists, annotations cover safety, description provides retrieval content and timing advice. Complete for a simple read 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 has 0% coverage, but description explains enum values 'H' and 'M': 'H is the divisive-issue class; M is the technical-dispute class.' This adds meaning beyond the raw enum.

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 reads live parameter set for pool class, listing specific parameters (stakes, bonds, mints, quorum, windows). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue or get_ledger.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use before staking' due to live nature of parameters. Provides practical context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the key's use for verification and its role as a first step, enhancing understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description explains what the tool does, why it is used, and when to use it. An output schema (not shown) likely defines the return structure, making the description 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?

There are no parameters, so the parameter semantics dimension is trivially satisfied. However, the description adds value by explaining the output's purpose (verification) rather than just stating what is retrieved.

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 ('Retrieve'), the specific resource ('server's Ed25519 public key'), and the purpose ('used to verify signed receipts...'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ledger, get_settlement, etc., which retrieve 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 explicitly says 'Use as the first step of any independent verification,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for this specific tool.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying what the tool retrieves (verdict, REP, receipt) without contradicting annotations. No behavioral surprises.

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, each loaded with information: the first lists what is retrieved, the second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. It is 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one param, output schema exists), the description is complete. It specifies the domain (settlement), the key fields returned, and a use case. It properly contextualizes the tool among siblings with different domains (challenge, corpus, market, etc.).

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 only parameter is 'settlement_id' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool's description does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints. However, the purpose is clear from context, and it's a single string identifier, so the meaning is obvious. A 3 is appropriate as the description offers minimal additional semantic help.

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 'one settlement record' and specifies the contents: 'resolved verdict, the REP staked and slashed, and the signed receipt'. It also provides a usage hint, 'Use when verifying how a pool resolved', which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_challenge or get_corpus.

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 explicitly says 'Use when verifying how a pool resolved', giving a clear scenario. While it does not state when not to use or name alternatives, the positive guidance is sufficient for this simple read tool. It effectively differentiates from siblings by focusing on settlement records.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about content (reasoning and attestations) and specifies the dispute class, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence conveys the essential purpose. While slightly verbose with 'machine-readable', it remains clear and direct.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The mention of reasoning and attestations enriches context. Missing parameter details reduce completeness slightly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the 'solution_id' parameter, but it does not. The parameter meaning is only inferred from the tool name.

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 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'Resolution Artifact for a Class M dispute', differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_issue' or 'get_ledger'.

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 Class M disputes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'list_solutions' or 'get_settlement'. No alternatives are mentioned.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; description adds that it returns current state and divisiveness index, going beyond annotations.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the action and scope, no 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?

With output schema present and no parameters, description covers functionality, usage, and result contents completely for a listing 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?

No parameters, so baseline of 4 applies; description does not need to add parameter info.

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 lists every Class H issue with state and divisiveness index, distinguishing it from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and list_solutions.

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?

Explicit usage contexts are provided ('what is being contested, what is open for validation, or which claims are most divisive'), but no direct comparison to alternatives is given.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds 'machine-readable outcomes' and 'settled answers' but does not provide additional behavioral details like pagination or error handling. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 redundancy, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word 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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (resolution artifacts), and when to use it.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is suitable as the tool requires no parameters.

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 explicitly states 'List all Resolution Artifacts' and defines them as 'machine-readable outcomes of Class M technical disputes'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_solution (single artifact) and list_issues (different domain).

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario: 'Use when the user wants settled answers rather than open questions.' This guides the agent on when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention 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.