Get Transaction Status

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, open-world, non-destructive lookup, so the description does not need to re-state that. What it does add is the shape of the result: confirmation status, block number, gas used, and addresses. It omits what happens for a pending or unknown hash, and it does not warn that the hash may resolve differently depending on the chain supplied, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the result fields, with no filler. The closing phrase 'and addresses' is slightly vague about which addresses are returned, but overall the text is efficient and well ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden, and it discharges it by enumerating the key receipt fields. Combined with a simple two-parameter schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is guidance on chain selection and pending-transaction behavior.

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 both the hash format ('0x...') and the chain enum with its default of 'base' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by its hash' and adds nothing about the chain parameter, which is the one place an agent could err by querying the wrong network. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 definition names a specific verb and resource: 'Check the on-chain status and receipt of a transaction by its hash.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from get_balance, get_auth_status, or get_quote. It does not explicitly rule out any similar sibling, but none of the listed siblings cover transaction receipts, so the differentiation is implicit and effective.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent could reasonably infer this is the follow-up call after send_tokens or swap_tokens, but the description never says so and never names an alternative. There is also no guidance on when-not to use it, e.g. for pending or dropped transactions, or on how to pick the chain.

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