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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states 'Historical read-only evidence; no transaction simulation, wallet, signing, or broadcast,' disclosing it is a safe read operation with no side effects. It also describes the inputs (receipt and exact block state) and outputs, providing a clear behavioral contract. No contradictions.

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, dense and front-loaded. The first sentence packs purpose and key output types; the second sentence gives alternative tool guidance and safety constraints. No fluff or repetition. Ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, safety profile, and parameter context. For a read-only, single-parameter tool, this description is thorough and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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% (single transactionHash with description 'Successful Base transaction containing a Morpho PreLiquidate event'). The description adds the context that the tool uses the receipt and exact block state to reconstruct the transaction, providing extra meaning about how the hash is used. It also clarifies the hash must be for a successful transaction, reinforcing the schema. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is justified.

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 reconstructs a successful Base Morpho PreLiquidation transaction from its receipt and exact block state, listing specific outputs (repaid/seized assets, oracle valuation, incentive, health window, gas). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by naming morpho_market_underwrite, morpho_position, and morpho_protection for different use cases, distinguishing it from other Morpho tools and general transaction receipt tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (historical read-only evidence for past transactions) and when to use alternatives (current market risk: morpho_market_underwrite; current borrower: morpho_position; future plan: morpho_protection). Also states what the tool does not do (simulation, wallet, signing, broadcast). This is exceptional guidance.

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