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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a non-authorizing, non-risk-assessment check and describes the response payload (valid/invalid, closed-loop or settlement status, binding assertions, machine-readable reasons). It leaves unstated whether verification has any side effects (e.g. recording a verification), any auth/permission requirements, or limits on evidence size — relevant for a tool ingesting large nested objects.

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, front-loaded with the scope first, then the use case, then the exclusions and return shape. No filler and nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description summarizes the return payload, and it clearly fences off the sibling risk/trading tools, which covers a lot of ground. However, for a nine-parameter, four-variant, nested-object tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition never explains the per-kind parameter contract, leaving a real gap an agent must guess around.

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% across nine parameters, including five free-form nested objects (settlement, expected_order, execution_receipt, pre_trade_attestation, destination_pre_trade_attestation), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never says which parameters belong to which `kind` — e.g. that execution_pair needs expected_order + execution_receipt + pre_trade_attestation while hyperliquid_perp needs user + order_id — nor what shape the attestation objects must take. Only a loose mapping is inferable from the enumerated artifact names.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (signed evidence) and then enumerates exactly the four artifact classes that match the `kind` enum: pre-trade/execution pair, Base agent-swap settlement, Solana swap settlement, Hyperliquid order/fill record. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like issue_execution_receipt (produces evidence) or check_trade_safety (assesses risk) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a third party needs to check binding and signatures before trusting a claim') and two explicit exclusions ('do not use it to re-assess oracle risk or to authorize trading'), which implicitly routes to the oracle_* and begin_trade_evidence/check_trade_safety families. It stops short of naming the alternative tools, so the agent must infer the routing from function descriptions.

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