request_pnl_settlement

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens upon success, whether the settlement is immediately applied, or any error conditions. The only behavior hinted is that a signature is required.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads key information. It is not verbose, but could benefit from additional details without becoming unwieldy.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, EIP-712, multiple siblings) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits expected return values, prerequisites, and integration steps with related tools like get_settle_pnl_nonce.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond field names (e.g., 'EIP-712 signature', 'User address'), but does not explain their roles or constraints like signature format or address validity.

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 action ('Request PnL settlement') and the method ('with EIP-712 signature'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like get_pnl_settlement_history and get_settle_pnl_nonce.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites such as obtaining a settlement nonce via get_settle_pnl_nonce, or when to use get_pnl_settlement_history for reviewing past settlements.

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