transactions / status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that finality is 'unverified' and data comes from RPC, but it omits what happens if the transaction is unknown or the RPC is unavailable. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: read operation, transaction receipt, unverified finality, RPC source.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the shape of the receipt or finality response. Combined with 0% parameter documentation, an agent lacks enough detail to call this confidently without inspecting the schema and guessing parameter meanings.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain that 'hash' is the transaction hash or what 'chain_id' is used for, leaving both required parameters semantically bare beyond their names.

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 states a specific read operation: fetching a transaction receipt and 'unverified finality' from RPC. That is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like history.status or observations.status, so an agent must infer which status endpoint applies.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus history.status, observations.status, transactions.simulate, or other transaction-related siblings. The description implies a read-after-send use case but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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