verify_settlement

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the result is a 'block-confirmed receipt,' but does not disclose whether the tool performs a read, whether it queries a chain, what side effects exist, or what errors may occur.

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 brief and contains no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The unexplained term 'SOC' and the lack of a verb make the sentence compact but not genuinely informative.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what input to provide and what the agent can expect back. It does neither, and it fails to connect the tool to its likely sibling proof_record, leaving the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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% and the description never mentions the txid parameter. The parameter name 'txid' is mildly self-explanatory, but the tool description does not clarify what the txid refers to, how it should be formatted, or how it relates to the settlement proof.

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 is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase: 'Block-confirmed receipt for a SOC settlement proof' hints that the tool returns a receipt, but it does not say it verifies, checks, or retrieves anything. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling proof_record, which sounds closely related.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool rather than proof_record, oracle, venue_state, or trade_door. The phrase 'block-confirmed' weakly implies a timing condition, but no clear context or exclusions are provided.

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