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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses what is returned (success/failure status, slot, block time, fee, deltas), what is excluded (raw instructions and logs), and explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('no wallet, signing, broadcast, custody, or execution action'). This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could additionally address error handling for non-finalized signatures.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense. The first sentence states the core action and outputs, the second provides usage context and an alternative, and the third clarifies exclusions and non-actions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has five parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry significant weight. It does so by covering purpose, specific return fields, exclusions, and chain specificity. However, given the complexity of the return data, a more detailed description of the response format would improve completeness.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by relating parameters to the settlement verification use case ('Supply recipient, amount, and optional payer when an exact settlement claim must be verified') and indicating that mint defaults to canonical USDC, enhancing the schema's dependency notes.

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 'Inspect one finalized Solana mainnet transaction signature' and lists the specific return values (status, slot, block time, fee, SPL-token owner deltas, canonical USDC deltas). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `transaction_receipt` by explicitly noting that it is for Base or Ethereum.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Supply recipient, amount, and optional payer when an exact settlement claim must be verified' and for alternative chains, 'use transaction_receipt for Base or Ethereum.' It also clarifies exclusions and non-actions, offering clear context.

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