updown_settle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'public settle' and 'anyone can call', but does not describe side effects, success/failure conditions, or what happens if called prematurely. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and additional context about public access and timing.

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 role in a betting lifecycle, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not mention return values (no output schema), preconditions beyond basic timing, or how this fits with other updown tools. More context on effects and usage flow is needed.

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 description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. 'asset' is an enum but not detailed; 'tf' (timeframe?) is not described. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no semantic value to the parameters.

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: settling an UPDOWN round after it ends and a valid Chainlink price is available. The verb 'settle' and resource 'UPDOWN round' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like updown_bet or updown_claim.

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 specifies when to use the tool (after round ends and valid price available) and that it is public. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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