tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explaining the data source (live public JSON-RPC) and cost/auth profile (free, no account). It also discloses a concrete expected result shape ('always returns found:true' for the sample), which is useful behavioral context. It omits error behavior for unknown, pending, or reverted hashes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then the auth/cost profile, then a working example. The example and its 'always returns found:true' note are slightly verbose but earn their place as immediate verifiability cues. No filler sentences.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the reported fields. It covers auth and data source too. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior (transaction not found, no USDC transfer, reverted transaction), which an agent may need.

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% and the single 'tx' parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description's example hash restates what the schema already provides rather than adding new parameter semantics such as failure modes for malformed or non-existent hashes.

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?

Names a specific verb (verify), a specific resource (a Base/Ethereum L2 transaction), and the exact output scope (USDC Transfer events with sender, recipient, amount, block, success, confirmation age). There are no siblings to confuse it with, and the chain is disambiguated as Base L2 rather than mainnet.

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?

Gives clear operating context: free, no account required, reads Base's public JSON-RPC live, and supplies a callable example with no setup. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., non-USDC transactions, unconfirmed/pending hashes, other chains), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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