get_mempool_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully clarifies the mempool scope (unconfirmed transactions only) but omits behavioral details like error handling when the txid is not found, rate limits, or whether this requires specific node permissions.

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 compact with two distinct sections: a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block documenting the single parameter. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 one parameter and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though noting the error behavior for missing transactions would provide full completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting the txid parameter in the Args section: defining it as a 'Transaction hash' and specifying the critical format constraint '64 hex characters' that the schema omits. It could achieve a 5 by including an example txid or noting the transaction must currently exist in the mempool.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('details of a specific unconfirmed transaction'), and scope ('in the mempool'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_mempool_info (general stats), get_mempool_ancestors (related transactions), and get_indexed_transaction (likely for confirmed transactions) by specifying 'specific' and 'unconfirmed'.

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 context by restricting scope to 'unconfirmed transaction in the mempool,' suggesting when to use this versus confirmed transaction lookups. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use get_indexed_transaction for confirmed transactions').

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