aureon_get_execution_settlement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a valuable behavioral trait: results only exist after an on-chain Rebalanced event, and staged executions yield none. It does not cover failure semantics (error vs. empty), permissions, or response shape, keeping it below 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key caveat. No filler or redundancy; a compact, well-ordered description.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data-existence conditions, and the crucial warning against claiming on-chain proof. Minor gaps around return format and error behavior keep it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents the single executionId parameter. The description adds no syntax, format, or source guidance for the id, so it earns only the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the chain-verified settlement record for a vault execution.' This distinguishes it from the list/confirm siblings (aureon_list_settlements, aureon_confirm_execution_settlement) at the noun level, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 condition under which the record exists (listener observed an on-chain Rebalanced event) and a clear exclusion (staged executions never have settlement records). It lacks explicit routing to alternatives such as list_settlements or confirm_execution_settlement, so it stops short of a 5.

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