resolve_price_event

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

Annotation contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description states 'PAID — $0.05 USDC' and 'Pays automatically from the configured wallet.' This indicates a financial side effect that modifies wallet balance, contradicting the read-only and idempotent hints. Despite otherwise useful behavioral detail, the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 concise yet front-loaded with the most critical facts: cost, purpose, return values, and mode selection. Every sentence contributes value—cost, outcome, mode warning, disagreement behavior, and payment. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return values, evidence, confidence, venue disagreement behavior, and payment. It lacks explicit details about wallet configuration or edge cases, but for a tool with six parameters, it is largely complete and actionable.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds important semantic context, especially for the 'mode' parameter: 'touch counts any intrabar print including wicks' and warns that 'the difference is the single most common cause of a disputed settlement.' This goes beyond the schema's dry enum descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Settlement verdict for a crypto price event: did the asset trade or close above/below a threshold during a window?' It specifies the resource (price event), the action (resolve/settle), and the return outcomes (YES/NO/DISPUTED/UNRESOLVED). This distinguishes it from siblings that attest or verify decisions.

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 description gives explicit guidance on mode choice: 'Choose mode carefully — close counts only candle closes, touch counts any intrabar print including wicks. They routinely give different answers.' It also explains why venues disagree leads to DISPUTED. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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