venue_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a mark-to-fill valuation approach, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it actually returns, or what 'real held' means in operational terms.

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 extremely short, but it is an incomplete noun phrase rather than a clear sentence. Its brevity sacrifices meaning, so this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool takes no parameters, the description leaves key context unexplained: what 'float' refers to, what output the caller should expect, and why 'mark-to-fill' matters. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for confident use.

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 and the schema already covers everything. There is no parameter information the description needs to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a resource ('Real held BTC float') and a valuation basis ('mark-to-fill'), but it contains no verb and does not clearly state what action venue_state performs. It is a cryptic noun phrase that does not meaningfully distinguish this tool from the 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus verify_settlement, oracle, trade_door, or proof_record. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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