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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that bsv.cx fetches the Merkle proof, folds it against synced block headers before serving, and that the bundle is verifiable by any @bsv/sdk client. It also discloses that the service is priced per call and paid via x402, making side effects and requirements transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the verification process, then provides pricing and payment context. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler, making it dense but efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input requirement, the processing behavior, the output contents (BEEF, BUMP, attestation), verifiability, and payment method. There are no meaningful gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 already fully documents the single txid parameter, including its pattern and a description that it is the confirmed transaction id. The description reinforces this but does not add significant new meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('portable, pre-verified proof bundle'), and the exact scope ('for any CONFIRMED BSV transaction id'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling spv_verify by noting that verification is free separately, while this tool performs fetch + fold + package.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when you need a pre-verified portable bundle for a confirmed transaction. It also contrasts with the free verification endpoint and mentions the x402 payment requirement, giving the agent clear routing and prerequisite information.

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