atstake_legion_conclude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permissionless access, the 12-block deadline, expiration behavior, payout composition, gas payment by the caller, and wallet requirement. It does not explicitly cover failure modes such as calling before voting closes, calling after expiration, or calling an already-concluded proposal, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 front-loaded and largely free of waste, with the core action and deadline stated immediately. The final tip about `earning_opportunities` is unrelated to invoking this tool and slightly dilutes conciseness.

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?

For a complex, state-dependent, mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains timing, payout behavior, caller cost, permissionless access, and wallet prerequisites. It could still be stronger by stating what happens if the proposal is not yet closed or has already been concluded.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains both parameters, including the side enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: “Settle a proposal and, if it passed, pay the proposer.” This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like atstake_legion_vote or atstake_legion_claim_credit, which do different things.

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 states the exact operational window (“opens the moment voting closes and stays open for 12 blocks”), the consequence of missing it (“EXPIRES, pays nobody, and can never be concluded afterwards”), and that the action is permissionless but necessary. It also gives the prerequisite (“Requires an unlocked wallet”).

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