jingswap_settle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the stale-price failure mode, that the call is free, and the required cycle phase. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or settlement effects, so it falls short of full transparency for a mutating action.

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 core purpose, warning, alternative, and prerequisite are front-loaded and efficient. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invoking this tool and slightly dilutes focus, but the definition remains compact.

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 one-parameter settlement action with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical call conditions and failure mode. It does not explain what a successful settlement produces or returns, leaving a modest gap for an action tool.

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 schema has one optional parameter with 100% description coverage specifying market values. The description adds no additional meaning about the market parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Settle the current auction cycle using stored Pyth oracle prices.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling jingswap_settle_with_refresh by explaining the price-source difference and reliability trade-off.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('almost always fail because stored prices go stale quickly') and names the preferred alternative jingswap_settle_with_refresh. It also states the prerequisite phase: 'Only works after deposits have been closed (buffer/settle phase).'

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