get_settlements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the status enum values, that scores are returned by period, the meaning of the `final` confirmation flag, and that unknown IDs surface in `notFound` rather than erroring. It omits auth mechanics beyond 'Paid plans' and any rate/error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the outcome ('what happened') then enumerates the return contents and the notFound behavior. Little waste, though the enumerated parenthetical is slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (status, per-period scores, `final` flag) plus the unknown-ID path and the paid-plan requirement. For a one-param batch lookup this is nearly complete, missing only permission/error specifics.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `eventIds` parameter already documents 'Comma-separated event IDs (max 50)'. The description restates the 50-event cap without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — retrieving settlement results ('what happened') for events, with status, scores and a confirmation flag. It is clearly distinct from event/odds listing siblings, but it never names the closest alternatives (get_events, get_historical_events) to sharpen the boundary.

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 'up to 50 events' batching and the 'Paid plans' gating condition imply when the tool is usable, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g. settling vs live vs historical fetching). Usage is only implied.

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