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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses billing semantics ('not_found is a charged answer', RPC failures not charged on Base but possibly charged on other rails), price and payment rail, that returned content is untrusted third-party data, and the polling contract. These are exactly the behaviors an agent must know before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then inputs, then return shape, then commercial terms — a sensible ordering with little filler. The pricing/terms tail is dense but each clause carries operational weight.

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 paid, read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description covers inputs, expected JSON fields, the polling loop, cost per call, payment rail, and the untrusted-data caveat. Nothing material to a correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the hash formats and the network enum. The description restates 'hash or Solana signature' and 'network optional for Solana and XRPL' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Transaction status API: did a payment or swap land, and is it final') and names the exact chains covered. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like tx_guard, chain_head, or balance 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?

Gives concrete call conditions: pass the tx hash or Solana signature, network is optional for Solana and XRPL hashes, and poll again after pollAgainSeconds until final is true. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling tx_guard, which keeps it short of a 5.

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