Decode transaction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape (status, fees, decoded call and event logs), adding real context beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating failure behavior for unknown hashes or chain availability.

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 sentence with the action and lookup key front-loaded, followed by a colon list of outputs. Every clause earns its place given the absence of an output schema, though the enumerated list is dense.

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?

For a two-required-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the decoded fields. Minor gaps remain around error handling and network-fetch semantics, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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?

Two parameters at 50% schema description coverage: chain carries an enum description while hash has only a regex pattern and no prose. The description's 'by hash' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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 compound verb (fetch and decode) plus the resource and lookup key (transaction by hash), and enumerates the decoded payload (status, fees, call args, event logs). An agent can distinguish this from decode_calldata by the 'whole transaction by hash' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage via 'by hash' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the close sibling decode_calldata. The agent must infer that this is for full transactions and decode_calldata is for raw calldata.

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