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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the cost ($0.008 USDC via x402), which is a useful additional behavioral detail not captured by annotations. It doesn't describe return structure or other nuances, but the added cost context justifies a 3.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The cost information is a valuable addition and takes no extra space. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool takes a single parameter and the schema fully documents it, the description covers the usage context well. The cost is mentioned. No missing information for an agent to call it correctly; output schema not needed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with a clear description of tx_hash. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool provides Base transaction context for verifying payments, debugging failed transactions, or confirming settlement. It distinguishes from siblings like base_receipt by emphasizing the 'one-call' comprehensive context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use: when an agent needs one-call Base transaction context to verify a payment, debug a failed transaction, or confirm settlement. Does not exclude specific alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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