settlement_estimate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), provides real-time data, includes fee details (0.5%), and specifies timing (SEPA Instant). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps.

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 purpose and efficiently includes essential details like fees, timing, and cost in a single, well-structured sentence. Every element earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, fees, timing, and cost. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be beneficial for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'amount' parameter as a USDC amount with formatting examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get settlement estimate') and resources ('USDC to EUR conversion via AsterPay's EUR off-ramp facilitator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_price' or 'check_token_tiers' by focusing on conversion estimation rather than price checking or tier analysis.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'USDC to EUR conversion' and 'FREE — no payment required,' suggesting it's for estimating conversions without cost. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_crypto_price' or detailed prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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