Prepare to settle a Bopster market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses permissionless settlement, resolver reward incentives, emergency refund support, and that the server is non-custodial and never holds keys or sends transactions. It stops short of describing response behavior or whether settlement is irreversible once submitted.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by eligibility, reward context, emergency path, and non-custodial behavior. It is efficient, though slightly more compact phrasing could improve it.

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?

It covers eligibility, permissionless access, reward behavior, the emergency refund path, and custody safety for a one-parameter tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could do more to explain the return shape, such as readiness result versus unsigned transaction list, and any failure cases.

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 100% for the single market parameter, so the schema already documents the required 0x address format. The description adds only contextual meaning that the market is on Base and is a Bopster market, which is useful but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check settlement readiness and build unsigned transaction(s) for a Bopster market on Base, including the emergency refund path. It is clear without opening the schema, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings such as prepare_claim or prepare_position.

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 gives clear conditions for use: after the Reality.eth answer is final for normal settlement, or via the emergency refund path when an answer never became final. It also notes that anyone can settle and that the sender may earn the resolver reward, but it does not explicitly state when to use a sibling tool instead.

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