view_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It states 'Read only, needs no wallet funds,' reveals that Resolved contracts remain at status 6/7 forever, and clarifies that winner_paid is the ONLY signal of payout. It also explains the bond lien semantics, giving deep behavioral context beyond a simple API note.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, field explanations, and parameter. It is well-structured with a field list that is easy to scan and a clear separation of ARGS. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (making return-value detail less critical). The description covers behavior, safety (read-only, no funds), and critical edge cases (winner_paid, bond_encumbered). It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines job_id as 'The contract ID whose dispute to inspect,' which clarifies that the parameter refers to the job contract, not a dispute ID. This fully disambiguates the only required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the on chain dispute record for a Disputed or Resolved contract.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like view_contract by focusing on the dispute record and listing dispute-specific fields. The purpose is immediately 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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this to follow an arbitration vote and to check payout state after resolution.' It also provides a strong when-not instruction ('Never retry claim_funds when winner_paid is 1'), which indirectly differentiates from the claim_funds sibling. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-dispute queries.

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