verify_settlement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only, no payment, fail-closed semantics, and that unknown/never-mined ids return a clean negative rather than a fake success. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or what the signed evidence looks like, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

Front-loads the core verb and the STRICTLY-defined success condition, then adds the fail-closed guarantee. Dense but each clause adds meaning; the emphasis caps are slightly noisy but do not dilute the content.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs: read-only, no payment, fail-closed negative handling, and signed evidence returned. The main gap is the absence of any detail on the returned verdict/evidence shape.

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 coverage is 100% with a single txid parameter already documented as '64-hex transaction id'. The description restates the same format, adding no syntax or validation meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (prove/verify) and resource (transaction id mined on-chain) with a precise definition of success (height>0 and out of mempool). An agent can distinguish this from anchor_receipt and book_status without opening either 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?

Clearly states the input (submit a 64-hex txid) and the outcome (block-confirmed verdict + signed evidence), giving usable context for when to reach for it. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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