settlement_audit

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds behavior beyond the annotations by specifying live-data operation, the comparison dimensions, and the three-way verdict format with reasons, plus input-id aliasing for polymarket_id. No contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output, then parameter semantics, then usage trigger. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, inputs (for the two required params), output categories, and when to run. Gaps: notional_usd's meaning and a more precise return shape, though the verdict categories give a workable contract. Overall sufficient for an audit 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?

Schema has zero description coverage, but the description explains that polymarket_id accepts a slug, Gamma id, or CLOB token id from search, and kalshi_ticker accepts the ticker. However, notional_usd (optional, default 0) is never described, leaving its purpose unclear.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (settlement divergence for a cross-venue pair), lists the exact comparisons (close times, resolution sources, UMA dispute status, market structure) and the output categories (ok/caution/block). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_venues or dispute_risk and from search tools.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Run this before treating any cross-venue price difference as an edge.' The 'LIVE data (no pre-curated pair list)' note sets expectations about applicability. No explicit alternatives are named or excluded, so not a 5.

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