ecash_get_dispute

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

The description carries the full burden since no annotations are provided. The word 'View' signals a read-only operation, and the listed fields give some context, but it does not disclose error handling, authorization requirements, or whether the response includes only the named fields or the entire dispute object.

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 a single concise sentence that begins with the action verb and delivers the essential information without redundant words or repetition of the tool name. Every word adds value.

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 read tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by enumerating key return fields. However, the use of 'including' leaves ambiguity about additional fields, and it does not clarify if the tool requires the dispute to exist or if it works for any job ID.

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 description covers the jobId parameter fully ('The ID of the disputed job'), so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, providing no additional semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'View' and names the resource 'details of a dispute', explicitly listing the contained information (arbitrators, votes, outcome). This clearly differentiates it from sibling dispute action tools like ecash_file_dispute and ecash_vote_dispute, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is used to inspect dispute details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case must be inferred from the tool name and context.

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