legion_conclude

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: permissionless access, caller-pays-gas economics, proposer-receives-payout, the irreversible expiry failure mode, and the fact that late concluding pays identically because the payout was snapshotted at propose time.

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 action, then consequence, then requirements – a sensible ordering with no filler. The trailing 'Tip' about `earning_opportunities` is tangential to this tool's job and slightly dilutes focus.

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 no-annotation mutation tool, the definition covers permissions, cost, timing, and failure mode comprehensively. The only omission is any hint about what a successful call returns (e.g., a transaction hash), though there is no output schema to lean on.

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% for the single `proposalId` parameter, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds no format or source guidance for the id (e.g., where to obtain it), leaving the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Settle a proposal and, if it passed, pay the proposer,' which tells an agent exactly what happens. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling `atstake_legion_conclude`, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 timing condition ('Conclude opens the moment voting closes'), the caller obligation ('anyone may call it, and someone must'), and a hard when-not ('a piece nobody concludes inside its window EXPIRES... can never be concluded after'). No alternative tool is named, but for a settle operation there is effectively only one path.

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