lookup_opcode

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (code, name, disabled/illegal status), which is the core behavioral trait for a lookup. It does not describe error handling, case sensitivity, or behavior for unknown/illegal opcodes, but for a simple lookup the stated return values provide adequate transparency.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes examples, and lists the return fields. Every clause earns its place with no repetition 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, acceptable inputs, and the shape of the result. The main omission is behavior for invalid or unknown queries, but this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 coverage is 100% since the query parameter has its own description. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples ('0xa8', 'OpSHA256') and clarifying that both hex and name forms are accepted, which reduces ambiguity about input formatting.

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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a clear resource ('Kaspa opcode'), and the two accepted input formats (hex code or name). It also names the output fields (code, name, disabled/illegal status), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like disassemble_script or explain_script_error.

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 gives clear input-format guidance (hex or name with examples), which helps the agent formulate the query. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when a disassembly or cost estimate is needed instead. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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