broadcast_signed_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the confirmation/preview gate, the one-time token, and per-chain credit costs. It omits that broadcasting is irreversible once confirmed and doesn't describe the response body, which are notable for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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?

Purpose and the confirmation caveat are front-loaded, which is correct ordering. The long per-chain credit enumeration is the bulkiest element but is structured and decision-relevant (cost affects tool choice), so it mostly earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts (confirmation flow, token, credits) that an agent needs before invoking. Remaining gap is the return payload and irreversibility, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (blockchain, network, signedTransactionHex, context, confirmationToken) are already documented, including the enum value sets. The description's credit table adds cost context tied to the blockchain parameter but no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource up front: 'Submit a signed transaction hex to the network,' with the tool name and Broadcast product identified. An agent can immediately tell this is a write/submit operation for pre-signed payloads, not a signing or query tool.

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?

Explains a crucial usage constraint: broadcast-signed-transaction actions require confirmation and return a preview with a one-time token rather than executing immediately. It also notes supported chains/networks vary. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool or stating when-not-to-use, but the two-step flow guidance is clear.

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