decode_signed_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (decoding) and input source, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or output format. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could provide more behavioral context for a tool that parses cryptographic data.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary function.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and input source. However, for a decoding tool that returns a transaction object, it should ideally mention what signature details are included or the structure of the decoded object. The absence of output schema increases the need for more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain network implications or pagination behavior). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('decode base64 signed transaction bytes') and the resource ('transaction object with signature details'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the input source ('blob from sign_transaction or wallet_sign_transaction'), making it unambiguous among many transaction-related tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Accepts the blob from sign_transaction or wallet_sign_transaction'), indicating it's for decoding already-signed transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., for unsigned transactions), which prevents a perfect score.

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