decode_raw_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the key trait that this performs local decoding without UTXO validation ('without looking up inputs'), but lacks other critical behavioral context such as error handling for malformed hex, whether the operation is read-only/safe, or performance characteristics. It meets the minimum for a stateless decoding operation but does not go beyond.

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 appropriately brief for a single-parameter tool, with no filler content. The 'Args:' section, while slightly informal for MCP standards, serves a functional purpose given the zero schema coverage. The core description is front-loaded and immediately actionable, though the parameter documentation could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the tool has a single simple parameter and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values in text), the description is minimally complete. However, for a Bitcoin-related tool with siblings that perform similar functions, it should explicitly note that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation to prevent confusion with send_raw_transaction, especially since no annotations indicate safety properties.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only the generic title 'Hex String'). The description compensates effectively by specifying that hex_string represents a 'Raw transaction in hex format,' providing necessary semantic context that the schema lacks. It could be improved by noting format constraints (e.g., 'without 0x prefix') or providing an example, but it adequately covers the single parameter.

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 core action (decode a raw transaction hex) and includes the crucial scope qualifier 'without looking up inputs,' which effectively distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_transaction that likely query blockchain state. It loses one point for not explicitly clarifying what 'raw transaction hex' means in the Bitcoin context for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 phrase 'without looking up inputs' implicitly suggests usage for offline analysis or unbroadcast transactions, but the description fails to explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like analyze_transaction (when blockchain validation is needed) or send_raw_transaction (when broadcasting). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided despite the presence of similar sibling tools.

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