Fetch one settlement record by id, returning every position's stake, entry time, earliness weight, and payout so the verdict is independently recomputable. Use this when the user wants to verify how a settled issue's payout was calculated rather than just its final verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settlement_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the specific fields returned (stake, entry time, earliness weight, payout) and emphasizing independent recomputability, which goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then immediately states the returned fields and usage context. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or vagueness.
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 with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does, why it exists, and when to use it. It provides enough detail for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, and the output schema covers the return structure.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the single parameter. It says 'by id' which maps directly to settlement_id, but does not elaborate on format, requiredness, or any constraints. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's 'id' reference is minimally sufficient for an agent to infer usage.
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 opens with 'Fetch one settlement record by id', a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the operation. It further specifies what is returned (every position's stake, entry time, earliness weight, payout) and contrasts with simply getting the final verdict, distinguishing it from sibling get_* 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?
The second sentence explicitly states when to use this tool: when the user wants to verify payout calculation rather than just the final verdict. This provides clear use-case guidance and implicitly contrasts with tools that return only verdicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching challenge, corpus, issue, ledger, market, params, key, settlement, solution; listing issues, tasks, solutions; preparing and submitting work; and describing the protocol. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_*, list_*, prepare_*, submit_*, and describe_*. The pattern is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 15 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a domain that requires both read and write capabilities. Each tool contributes meaningfully without redundancy, and the count falls within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: understanding the write protocol, reading all relevant data (issues, markets, ledger, settlements, solutions, params), preparing work entries, and submitting them. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for an agent to accomplish its goals.