get_transaction_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does little. 'Check' implies a read, but it never states read-only status, auth requirements, or what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied (required=[]). It also does not describe the response shape for the on-chain vs. indexing paths.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and both lookup modes front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too terse for the ambiguities it leaves unresolved, but structurally it is efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage across two optional params, the description should explain the mutual-exclusion/fallback behavior and return content. It only gestures at two data sources, leaving an agent unable to know how to call it unambiguously.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by linking transaction_hash to an on-chain receipt and intent_id to o1 indexing, which is real semantic value. However, it omits any indication of which parameter is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or the accepted hash format.

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 (Check) and two concrete resources (on-chain receipt, o1 indexing) scoped to an intent or transaction hash. The purpose is clear, though it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like get_wallet_activity, though overlap risk is low.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor which of the two optional parameters to supply. The phrase 'optional o1 indexing' hints that indexing is a secondary mode but never states when the agent should rely on it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the parameter names.

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