getSettlementRecord

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. The description adds useful runtime behavior: default 30-day windows for different time-parameter combinations and a latency/delay warning during extreme volatility. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: one scope sentence, a tightly bulleted set of time-range rules, and a short latency note. Every line earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description makes a single-page settlement query self-explanatory and the schema covers defaults and the category enum. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention cursor-based pagination, limit semantics, symbol filtering, or what fields the returned records contain. For an agent that needs to page through results, this is a notable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does this well for startTime and endTime with four explicit range rules, but limit, cursor, symbol, and category are left essentially to the schema. The compensation is only partial.

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: 'Query session settlement records of USDC perpetual contracts.' The line 'Unified account covers: USDC contract (linear)' further narrows the scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from obvious siblings like getDeliveryRecord or getFundingRateHistory, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The detailed time-range rules are about parameter combinations after the tool has already been selected, not about choosing this tool over siblings such as getClosedPnl or getDeliveryRecord. An agent must infer the intended use case purely from the name.

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