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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious trait — confirmation is eventual, so a submitted tx must be polled — but says nothing about return values, error behavior, or the api_key auth requirement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the operational rule. No filler; every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a confirmation check returns (boolean, status, block depth). It covers when/why well but leaves the response shape and parameter formats unspecified for a tool the agent must branch on.

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 0% for both required params. The description loosely implies tx is a payment transaction hash/signature via 'payment_tx you're about to reference', but gives no format detail, and api_key is entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a payment transaction is confirmed on-chain yet') with clear scope. It is easily distinguished from siblings like mint, register, and prepare_payment, which it explicitly references.

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 explicit sequencing: poll after paying and before calling 'register', 'mint', or trusting a payment_tx. It names the sibling tools it gates and explains the failure mode ('submitting a transaction does not mean it is confirmed') that motivates the check.

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