jingswap_get_settlement

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

With no annotations provided, the description does real work: it declares read-only behavior via "Get", enumerates the returned fields, and discloses the null-settlement edge case an agent could otherwise mishandle. It stops short of covering failure modes, market-specific behavior, or permissions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return values and the edge case. The earning_opportunities tip is tangential but short and clearly separated from the core definition.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds by naming the returned fields and the null case. It leaves gaps around per-market/per-asset structuring of the returned amounts and error behavior, so it's strong but not complete.

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% and both parameters (cycle, market) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about cycle numbering or market selection beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get settlement details for a completed auction cycle") plus an enumeration of exactly what comes back (clearing price, amounts cleared, fees, block height). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like jingswap_get_cycle_state or jingswap_get_cycles_history, so an agent must still infer which jingswap read to call.

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 phrase "for a completed auction cycle" and the note that it returns null when the cycle hasn't settled imply when it applies, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites (e.g. call get_cycle_state first to confirm settled) are stated. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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