broadcast_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can perform both dry-run testing and actual broadcasting, and it returns different result structures for each mode. However, it lacks critical details like network requirements, error conditions, or confirmation behavior that would be needed for a higher score.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 transaction broadcasting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters and return values. However, it lacks important context about network effects, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in 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 must compensate fully. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'tx_hex' as 'Signed transaction as hex string', 'dry_run' with its default and purpose, and 'max_fee_rate' as optional with units. This provides meaningful context beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Send signed transaction') and resource ('to the network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_transaction' or 'verify_timestamp', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_op_return_transaction' or 'verify_timestamp'. It mentions dry-run functionality but doesn't explain when to choose dry-run versus actual broadcast, leaving usage context unclear.

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