get_settlement_status

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 reveals key behaviors: returns every Settlement row (including explanation of multiple rows from reactive pricing models) and an aggregate of USD payout and NOMD minted. It also mentions the splitter tx hash and statuses. This provides good transparency.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the typical usage scenario. No additional detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'assignment_id', with a description. The tool description adds no additional information about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the settlement status for one of your assignments.' It specifies the resource (settlement status) and the action (get). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_my_settlements, the name and focus on a single assignment provide sufficient clarity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after a business confirms completion to verify payout, see the splitter tx hash, or trace why a settlement is still pending/refunded.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like list_my_settlements.

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