Check forward test registration status to confirm if joint, scenario, and ensemble predictions have been settled. Verify settlement status to avoid using unsettled forward test predictions.
Forward test 註冊狀態（Prediction Registry 中 joint/scenario/ensemble 預測是否已結算）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what status is queried. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any potential side effects.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It could be slightly clearer by aligning 'registration status' with 'settlement status', but it is efficiently sized and front-loaded with the core concept.
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 zero-parameter status tool, the description conveys the essential meaning, including the specific predictions covered. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the response shape and exact status values to inference.
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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics gap for the description to fill, and the schema already confirms no arguments are required.
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 identifies a specific resource—forward test status in the Prediction Registry—and clarifies that it reports whether joint/scenario/ensemble predictions are settled. It is distinguishable from sibling status tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and uses the slightly inconsistent '註冊狀態' alongside '是否已結算'.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_data_source_status, get_analysis_archive_status, or get_target_instrument_state. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and resource reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.