get_mempool_ancestors

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It qualifies the scope ('all' ancestors, 'unconfirmed') and use case (CPFP). However, missing behavioral details like error handling when txid not found in mempool, or whether results include the queried transaction itself.

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?

Extremely efficient structure: purpose statement, use case, and Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place. No redundant phrases or generic fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 only 1 simple parameter and an output schema exists, the description is appropriately complete. The Args section covers the schema gap. Minor gap: could mention that the transaction must exist in the mempool.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates effectively by documenting the txid parameter with format constraints ('64 hex characters') and semantics ('Transaction hash'), providing critical validation guidance absent from the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'unconfirmed ancestor transactions' and scope 'mempool transaction'. The CPFP analysis mention further clarifies intent. Clearly distinguishes from sibling get_mempool_entry (single entry) and analyze_mempool (aggregate stats).

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?

Provides implied usage context via 'Useful for CPFP analysis', indicating when to use it. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for confirmed transactions) or alternatives like get_mempool_entry for single-transaction lookups.

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