decode_xpop

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool decodes (a read-only, offline operation), specifies inputs and outputs in detail (source ledger header, decoded BURN transaction, UNL validator set), and indicates it is offline. It does not cover error scenarios but is transparent about the core behavior.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, accepted input formats, and output components. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no extraneous or redundant phrasing.

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 the complexity (single parameter, straightforward decode) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it accepts, and what it returns. The mention of 'Offline' is a helpful contextual signal. No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides a description for the single parameter 'xpop' (string or object), but the tool description adds context: it explains the relationship between the hex and JSON formats and identifies the XPOP as the proof blob. This additional semantic information helps the agent understand the parameter's nature beyond the 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 identifies the tool's purpose: decoding an XPOP (Xahau Proof of Payment) blob from Import/Burn2Mint transactions. It specifies the unique resource ('XPOP') and action ('decode'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like decode_tx_blob or decode_b2m.

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 implies usage when you have an XPOP blob ('Accepts the Import Blob hex... or the XPOP JSON'), but it does not provide explicit when-not to use or contrast with similar decode tools among siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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