get_pending_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the tool returning a snapshot of the current pending pool. No additional details about ordering, pagination, or rate limits are provided.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It identifies the output (list of transaction IDs) and the context (pending pool/mempool). The annotations and schema cover the remaining safety and parameter details, so no further information is needed.

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 only parameter, 'network', has a description in the schema ('Network name. Defaults to mainnet.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Get the list of transaction IDs currently in the pending pool (mempool).' It specifies the resource (pending pool/mempool) and the output ('list of transaction IDs'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like get_pending_size or get_transaction_from_pending.

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 its usage by stating what it does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pending_size or get_transaction_from_pending. The context of the pending pool is clear, but 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.