crypto.tx

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries transparency. It discloses the live nature, the possible statuses (mined/reverted/pending), and error behavior (404). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the input schema covers required parameters.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by a usage hint and error behavior. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given no output schema and two straightforward parameters, the description covers the return fields, chains, and a typical use case. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to proceed.

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 description adds context beyond the schema by listing the chains and explaining what the tool returns (e.g., block, confirmations, gas used). Although the schema already describes the hash format, the description helps the agent understand how parameters relate to the output.

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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'EVM transaction status + receipt by hash', listing specific returned fields and supported chains. This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like crypto.gas-oracle or crypto.token-price.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Confirm a payment settled or a tx reverted before acting.' It also mentions a 404 error for unknown hashes, implying when not to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state prerequisites.

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