fdc_verify_settlement

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states phase 1 is 'free, no chain write', that verification is done locally via Merkle proof, that it 'binds it to the payment', and that it 'Never submits on-chain itself.' These are strong, non-obvious behavioral guarantees.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, phase-1 behavior, phase-2 verification, and the on-chain neutrality guarantee. It could be more scannable with separate sentences for each mode, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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 nine-parameter, two-phase tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core protocol and safety model well. It still omits the tool's return value, how an agent should obtain abi_encoded_request, and the precise role of required_confirmations and network, leaving some non-obvious invocation details underspecified.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for amount ('>= amount'), asset and payee (ERC-20 Transfer check), and voting_round_id/abi_encoded_request (finalized proof inputs). However, network, required_confirmations, and payer are not explained, leaving partial gaps that the schema alone does not fill.

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 action and resource: 'Prove an x402 settlement via Flare's enshrined FDC' and contrasts it with 'not the facilitator's word.' It lays out the two operation modes clearly, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous even among similar-sounding FDC siblings.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Given a settlement tx hash' triggers the phase-1 attestation request, while a 'finalized voting_round_id + abi_encoded_request' triggers local verification. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the conditional guidance is clear.

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