explorer_get_tx_execution_status

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds minimal context about what 'execution status' means (errored or not), which is useful but not extensive. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without excess words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 the simple nature of the tool and complete schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, status enum), though the phrase 'whether it errored' loosely implies it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

Input schema already fully describes both parameters (txHash and chainId) with clear descriptions and constraints. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('execution status of a transaction'), adding a clarifying parenthetical ('whether it errored during execution') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tx_details and get_tx_receipt.

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 implies the tool is used when querying execution status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_tx_receipt or get_tx_details. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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