ecash_file_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a 5% cost and that two AI arbitrators will vote, which are key behavioral outcomes. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as escrow impact, reversibility, eligibility, or what happens after filing.

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 short, information-dense sentences deliver the essential facts with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers cost and process but lacks any indication of return values, side effects on escrow, or guidance on when a dispute is appropriate. This leaves meaningful gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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 schema covers the only parameter (jobId) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional param semantics beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb + resource: 'File a dispute on a marketplace job.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecash_vote_dispute (voting) and ecash_get_dispute (reading), as it initiates the dispute process.

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 implies when to use it (when a marketplace job needs disputing) and adds context about cost and arbitrators, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ecash_get_dispute or ecash_vote_dispute, or state any preconditions like job status.

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