jingswap_settle_with_refresh

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

No annotations exist, and the description carries the full burden well: it discloses cost (~2 µSTX), that VAAs are fetched automatically from the backend, that post conditions run in Allow mode because funds are distributed to all depositors, and that success is not guaranteed. That is unusually rich disclosure for a settlement mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the VAA-refresh mechanism, with cost, side effects, and prerequisites following in a logical order. The trailing `earning_opportunities` tip is tangential but short and clearly marked as a tip.

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?

Covers cost, prerequisites, failure modes, and fund distribution, and no output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It stops short of telling the agent how to verify or retry after a settlement (e.g. via `jingswap_get_settlement`), which matters for a fund-moving operation with acknowledged failure risk.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (`market`) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the two market choices. The description adds nothing about market selection or the default, which is acceptable but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Settle the current auction cycle') and adds a distinguishing mechanism: refreshing Pyth oracle prices with fresh VAAs first. This clearly separates it from the plain settlement path (stored prices are 'almost always stale'), although the sibling `jingswap_settle` is never named explicitly, so the agent must infer the contrast.

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?

Explicitly recommends this as the default path ('This is the recommended settlement method') and names the precondition, the buffer/settle phase after deposits are closed. It also flags when it may fail (oracle update failure) and points to `earning_opportunities` for follow-up context.

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