settle_paper

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

Annotations already state idempotentHint=true, but the description adds 'una sola vez' to reinforce single-credit behavior. It also discloses a meaningful behavioral trait, 'no envía transacciones,' which is not present in the annotations. This gives the agent a clear picture that the tool only updates internal paper-trading state without real-world side effects.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies a key boundary (no transactions). Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation info.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when it applies ('oficialmente resueltos'), its idempotency ('una sola vez'), and its non-transactional nature. The main gap is that 'paper' is not explained, but sibling context and the explicit non-transaction statement make the tool's role reasonably clear.

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 zero parameters, making parameter semantics a non-issue. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to document.

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 action ('Acredita' = credits) and a resource ('resultados paper oficialmente resueltos' = officially resolved paper results), so it is not a tautology. It also distinguishes itself from transaction-executing tools by adding 'no envía transacciones,' which separates it from siblings like execute_trade. However, 'paper' is left undefined and the verb 'acreditar' could be more precise than the tool name 'settle_paper.'

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 when to use the tool: after results are officially resolved and when crediting them exactly once. It also gives an exclusion by stating it does not send transactions, which steers agents away from using it for order execution. It does not name specific alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the transaction exclusion.

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