Get dispute record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It explicitly states 'Read-only — one network read, no key required, and safe to poll while a dispute is open', giving agents clear expectations about side effects, authentication, cost, and polling safety.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return contents; the second delivers the behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the response contains, that the call is read-only and cheap, and that polling is safe. No critical operational detail is missing.

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%, so the parameter disputeDigest is already fully documented in the schema, including format and provenance ('as returned by open_dispute'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a dispute in full'), and enumerates what is returned: state, both sides' evidence references, verdict and rationale, and ledger signature. It clearly distinguishes itself from the dispute-mutation siblings by emphasizing read-only access.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it is a read-only fetch, requires no key, and is safe to poll while a dispute is open. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but the read-only framing makes the correct use case obvious relative to sibling tools like open_dispute and adjudicate_dispute.

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