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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned facets (status, block, value, commission), which implies a read-only lookup. However it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown signature, whether an unconfirmed/pending transaction is acceptable, or any rate or permission constraints. Partial coverage of the behavioral profile warrants 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?

The text is short, front-loaded with the outcome, and uses a clean Args block. Every line earns its place, though the repeated 'red'/'firma' labels add slight boilerplate without further explanation.

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 simple two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the lookup semantics and parameter meanings adequately. It is still thin on failure modes, pending-transaction handling, and any constraints the caller must respect before invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning: red is enumerated as base/ethereum/solana, and firma is clarified as an EVM transaction hash vs a Solana signature. It still omits format details (hex length, casing, whether base is on Base mainnet) and does not mark them as required.

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 names the resource (una transacción) and enumerates exactly what it returns: estado, bloque, valor y comisión. That is more specific than a bare noun label and an agent can tell it apart from siblings like saldo or precio by the returned fields. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from estado or bloque, which overlap thematically, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as bloque or estado, which are the most likely competing siblings. The reader must infer that this tool is for inspecting a single transaction given its network and hash/signature.

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