explorer_get_tx_receipt

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already define the safety and state characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting the receipt includes status and gas usage, which is more about output content than behavior.

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 is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately communicates what is returned. No filler or 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?

While simple and adequately documented via parameters and annotations, the lack of an output schema means the description should ideally mention more about what a receipt includes. It mentions execution status and gas usage but omits other common receipt fields (logs, block number, etc.), leaving some ambiguity for agents expecting a complete receipt object.

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%, with both txHash and chainId having clear descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 gets a transaction receipt and highlights execution status and gas usage. It is specific about the resource and data focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like explorer_get_tx_details or evm_get_transaction_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases such as after submitting a transaction, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison.

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