encode_tx_blob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly notes the tool does not sign and is offline, but does not mention other traits like being read-only, safe, or side-effect-free. The information is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that is both concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details on the output format, constraints, or potential errors. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description only states the parameter is a 'transaction JSON', which adds minimal meaning. It does not specify required fields, structure, or examples. More detail is needed.

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 specifies the verb 'encode', the input 'transaction JSON', the output 'UNSIGNED Xahau binary blob', and the usage context 'for inspection/round-trip; never signed. Offline.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_tx_blob and build_*_unsigned.

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 states 'for inspection/round-trip; never signed. Offline.' which implies when to use (inspection, round-trip, offline) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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