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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It provides no information about side effects, return values, security implications, or operational characteristics. The cryptic phrase does not explain what the tool does or how it behaves.

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 extremely brief but fails to be effective. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no useful information. The phrase is cryptic and does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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 complete lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is the only source of information. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to invoke it, or what to expect. The tool is likely a placeholder or severely underspecified.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to clarify; the schema is empty and the description adds no parameter-related details, but there is no deficiency in that regard.

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 'Earned rate + ML-DSA-87 signature' is vague and does not state a clear verb or resource. It mentions concepts but fails to specify what the tool does, leaving its purpose ambiguous. It is not a tautology but lacks any actionable clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (verify_settlement, venue_state, etc.). There is no mention of context, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any routing information.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'public record' weakly implies a read-only, safe operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return behavior, immutability, or access characteristics.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key concept 'public record'. It is concise, though it sacrifices some helpful detail for brevity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core context—what record is exposed—but does not explicitly state the action or return value. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent to infer that calling the tool returns the mentioned record.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantics by identifying the exact fixed record that the no-argument call accesses, making the absence of inputs meaningful.

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 identifies a specific resource—the public record of the first SOC<->BTC atomic settlement—which distinguishes it from vague generic names, but it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return'. An agent can infer the tool exposes this record, but not precisely what calling it does.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use proof_record versus siblings like verify_settlement or oracle, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, mutating, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns data. The phrase 'Flat no-KYC' suggests a fee structure but not behavior.

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 extremely brief but under-specified. It is a single fragment that omits essential verb and context, so it is not concise — it is incomplete. The limited words do not earn their place because they fail to convey meaning.

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 absence of an output schema and the unclear purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does or what it returns. The sibling names suggest a domain but the tool's role remains opaque.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, no compensation is needed. The description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 'trade instructions' but lacks a clear verb — it doesn't say whether the tool retrieves, submits, or processes trades. The terms 'USDC/SOC, BTC/SOC' hint at currency pairs but offer no actionable specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings (verify_settlement, oracle, etc.) only by name, not by function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has no basis to select this over verify_settlement or oracle.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a mark-to-fill valuation approach, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it actually returns, or what 'real held' means in operational terms.

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 extremely short, but it is an incomplete noun phrase rather than a clear sentence. Its brevity sacrifices meaning, so this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool takes no parameters, the description leaves key context unexplained: what 'float' refers to, what output the caller should expect, and why 'mark-to-fill' matters. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for confident use.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything. There is no parameter information the description needs to add, so the baseline of 4 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 names a resource ('Real held BTC float') and a valuation basis ('mark-to-fill'), but it contains no verb and does not clearly state what action venue_state performs. It is a cryptic noun phrase that does not meaningfully distinguish this tool from the sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus verify_settlement, oracle, trade_door, or proof_record. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the result is a 'block-confirmed receipt,' but does not disclose whether the tool performs a read, whether it queries a chain, what side effects exist, or what errors may occur.

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 brief and contains no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The unexplained term 'SOC' and the lack of a verb make the sentence compact but not genuinely informative.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what input to provide and what the agent can expect back. It does neither, and it fails to connect the tool to its likely sibling proof_record, leaving the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions the txid parameter. The parameter name 'txid' is mildly self-explanatory, but the tool description does not clarify what the txid refers to, how it should be formatted, or how it relates to the settlement proof.

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 is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase: 'Block-confirmed receipt for a SOC settlement proof' hints that the tool returns a receipt, but it does not say it verifies, checks, or retrieves anything. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling proof_record, which sounds closely related.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool rather than proof_record, oracle, venue_state, or trade_door. The phrase 'block-confirmed' weakly implies a timing condition, but no clear context or exclusions are provided.

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