HIP-4 Recent Settlements

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it reports settlement time, winning side 'when determinable,' fill counts, payouts, and losses. This gives the agent a clear picture of what sort of data to expect and acknowledges uncertainty in outcome determination.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The return-field enumeration is compact but informative. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the essential return vocabulary, including the caveat that winning side is included only when determinable. It could add sorting or defaults, but those are largely covered by the schema and the word 'recent.' For a read-only list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 already describes all three parameters with defaults, ranges, and meaning, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List recent HIP-4 settlements.' It then lists the exact return fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools about outcomes, trades, and volume. A settlement-specific listing tool is clearly separate from hip4_outcome_summary and hip4_outcome_recent_trades.

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 makes the basic use case obvious—retrieve recent HIP-4 settlements—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling differentiation or exclusion guidance is provided, so the agent must infer suitability from the name and return fields.

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