Four tools with complete input schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output schema clarity. All tools are read-only observational services with clear disclaimers. Naming follows verb_noun pattern (dispute_check, dispute_providers, dispute_route, dispute_today). Descriptions are substantive (120-180 chars) and explain observational nature. However, parameter descriptions lack detail on formats, constraints, and valid values. Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. No error handling guidance or recovery paths. Tool composition is sound (each does one thing), but parameter validation rules are absent.

• Add output schema documentation to all tools. Define the structure of dispute_check response (e.g. { dispute_history: [], active_cases: [], reversal_flags: [] }), dispute_route response (e.g. { providers: [{name, case_load, intake_url}], ranked: true }), etc. This enables LLM planning.
• Convert 'chain' parameter to enum: {"type": "string", "enum": ["ethereum", "base", "arbitrum"]}. Remove the pipe-delimited description and rely on the schema constraint.
• Add maxLength and pattern constraints to 'description' parameter: {"type": "string", "maxLength": 2000, "minLength": 10}. Move validation rules from description text into schema.
• Convert 'jurisdiction' parameter to enum or add description with valid values: {"type": "string", "enum": ["decentralized", "optimistic", "crowdsourced"]} or document the full list of accepted values.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g. 'If address is invalid, returns 400 with message "Invalid address format". If backend is unavailable, returns 503, retry after 30s.' This guides LLM recovery.