wait_for_settlement

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the long-poll timing model, the exact pending/timeout behavior, and the shape of the settled response including that `winner` is absent for non-YES/NO settlements. That conditional-absence detail is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then behavioral nuances, then per-argument notes. Every sentence adds information — the polling note and the response-field enumeration both directly affect how an agent calls and interprets the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still clarifies the conditionally-present `winner`/`won` fields, which is the part most likely to be misread. Combined with complete parameter documentation and timeout semantics, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: event_symbol with a concrete example, outcome_id's provenance and when it may be omitted, contract_symbol's format and purpose, and timeout_seconds' bounds (0–120), default (60), and the special meaning of 0.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (wait for) and resource (an event's outcome settlement) plus the returned information (which side won). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_event_details or get_event_summary by its blocking/polling semantics, and the conditional-response language reinforces that.

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?

It clearly explains the polling contract: a 15-minute window may outlast one call, a timeout returns status "pending", and you should call again — plus timeout_seconds=0 means a single check. It also names get_event_details as the source of outcome_id. It stops short of explicitly ruling out alternatives (e.g. 'use get_event_summary for a one-shot read'), so not a 5.

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