tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the read-only live-RPC nature, the absence of auth/cost, and the returned fields including on-chain success and confirmation age. It omits failure/empty-result behavior (e.g., tx with no USDC transfers) and rate limits, so it is not fully complete but goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the output field list and usage context. The embedded example is long and slightly promotional ('Example you can call right now, no setup'), but it is functional rather than padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and access conditions. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior (no-event transactions, invalid/unsettled hashes) that an agent might 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 coverage is 100%, so the single `tx` parameter is already fully documented in the schema with a pattern and example. The description's example call repeats that hash and adds no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (Verify) plus resource (Base/Ethereum L2 transaction) and an explicit enumeration of what it reports (USDC Transfer events: sender, recipient, amount, block number, success, confirmation age). An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 supplies clear usage context — free, no account, reads Base's public JSON-RPC live — and gives a ready-to-call example, which strongly implies when to use it. There are no sibling tools, so no alternatives need naming, but it states no exclusions (e.g., non-USDC or non-Base transactions).

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