Verify the signed testnet transaction

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

The description adds behavioral context: it reads on-chain data, requires on-chain evidence before reporting success, and never reports success without evidence. This complements annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). However, the readOnlyHint=false annotation suggests potential state modification, which the description doesn't clarify, causing a minor inconsistency.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and constraints.

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?

Adequate for a verification tool with an output schema, but lacks mention of prerequisites or error conditions. Does not reference sibling tools or context.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (chainId, planHash, transactionHash) beyond vague mentions of 'chain', 'plan', and 'transaction'. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters.

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 verifies a signed transaction against a plan using on-chain data, with specific details on what is proven (sender, target, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'execution_prepare' and 'plan_simulate'.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing plan, signed transaction) or when not to use it.

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