ecash_enroll_arbitrator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently reveals important behavioral traits: the Silver tier requirement, random selection for disputes, and the mandatory 25 ECASH stake per dispute. This goes beyond a simple 'enroll' by warning the user about the cost and unpredictability. It does not mention reversibility or what happens on insufficient funds, but coverage is good for a simple enrollment action.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second provides essential prerequisites and consequences. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the main contextual aspects: what the tool does, who can use it, and the implications (random selection, staking). It does not describe the return value or post-enrollment steps in detail, but for an enrollment action, the description is reasonably complete and aligned with sibling tools like ecash_withdraw_arbitrator.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (coverage is 100% vacuously). The description adds meaningful context by explaining the behavior of the tool (eligibility, staking, random selection), which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 action: 'Enroll as a dispute arbitrator.' The verb 'enroll' and resource 'dispute arbitrator' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like ecash_withdraw_arbitrator (opposite action) and ecash_file_dispute or ecash_vote_dispute (different dispute-related actions).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating the eligibility prerequisite ('Requires Silver tier (10+ puzzle solves)') and consequences ('randomly selected for disputes and must stake 25 ECASH per dispute'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives such as ecash_withdraw_arbitrator for unenrolling.

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