Fetch SAP Dispute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal extra behavioral info, such as being an SDK wrapper against Solana RPC and the 'V2' version specificity. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's primary function, followed by relevant context. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and thorough annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple read tool. It explains the broader usage pattern (inspect before mutate). Lacks but does not require deeper detail.

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 single parameter (disputePda) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch a V2 dispute PDA', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also provides SAP context, distinguishing this fetch tool from sibling mutation tools and other fetch tools like sap_fetch_attestation.

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 advises using this read tool to inspect chain state before performing mutations, providing clear usage context. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative fetch tools, the name and context make its specific use case obvious.

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