analyze_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable operational context about the txindex requirement and hosted API behavior, but does not disclose safety profile (read-only status), rate limits, or caching behavior that would be necessary for a complete transparency score.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler content.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input format and operational constraints. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from 'decode_raw_transaction' (which takes raw hex vs. txid), but this is partially implied by the parameter name.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by specifying the txid format ('64 hex characters') and adding crucial operational context about txindex requirements. It successfully adds meaning where the schema provides none.

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 decodes and analyzes transactions, listing specific capabilities (inputs, outputs, fee rate, SegWit/Taproot flags, inscription detection). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'decode_raw_transaction', the specific feature set implies its scope.

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 provides operational prerequisites ('Local nodes need txindex=1 for confirmed txs') which serves as implicit 'when to use' guidance, but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like when to use this versus 'decode_raw_transaction' or 'get_indexed_transaction'.

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