settle_each_way

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (total staked is 2x stakeCents) and clarifies the two-part nature. However, it does not explain settlement behavior per result (win/place/lose), return values, or whether the operation is a read or write, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical detail about stake doubling. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the win and place parts are settled for each result (win/place/lose), what the function returns, or any side effects. For a settlement tool with 4 parameters, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 coverage is 50% (decimalOdds and placeFraction have descriptions, stakeCents and result do not). The tool description adds meaning to stakeCents by clarifying it is the per-part stake and total is 2x, which is useful. The result parameter's enum values are self-explanatory. Overall, the description partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully explain all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool settles an each-way bet, explicitly mentioning the win and place parts. This distinguishes it from siblings like settle_single and settle_accumulator. The additional note about total stake being 2x stakeCents further specifies its unique behavior.

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 description implies when to use this tool (for each-way bets) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use settle_single for non-each-way bets', so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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