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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations including that Binance is reported unavailable rather than silently counted, the payment amount and method ($0.05 USDC via x402), and the semantics of 'touch' vs 'close'. This provides the agent with important expectations about network behavior and costs that annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It starts with the core function, then explains output types, venues, Binance caveat, mode guidance, and payment. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple venues, payment, mode semantics, settlement disputes), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the answer categories, evidence per venue, a potential network issue, payment details, and mode implications. Without an output schema, it still gives enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantics by explaining the real-world meaning of 'mode' (candle closes vs intrabar prints) and clarifying the payment_header usage ('Omit on first call to receive payment requirements'). This supplements the schema meaningfully.

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: 'Settlement verdict for a crypto price event.' It specifies the output types (YES/NO/DISPUTED/UNRESOLVED), per-venue evidence, and confidence, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_price_event or get_permit_verdict. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'price event' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use mode='close' vs mode='touch', which is a critical usage decision. It also explains the Binance region block and payment requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool, so it's not a full replacement for usage guidance.

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