x402_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait: 'PAID $0.001 USDC' indicating a cost, and states the outcome (pending/confirmed status). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling, or return format details, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the cost signal ('PAID $0.001 USDC') and then immediately states the purpose. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, input, and cost. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the clear status outcome mentioned.

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% — the schema already describes 'txid' as 'transaction id to look up'. The description's mention of 'by txid' adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'look up an Algorand transaction's pending/confirmed status by txid.' It specifies the resource (Algorand transaction) and the input (txid), making it distinct from sibling tools that perform actions like stake, unstake, or submit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the description clearly implies this is for checking transaction status, likely after a submission. The distinction from action-oriented siblings is implicit rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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