trace_transaction_stakeholders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a single RPC read, explains the effect of the Touch amendment, and describes the return structure. This is informative, though rate limits or errors are not mentioned.

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 sentences with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides additional important context. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists (from context signals), the description does not need to detail return values, but it does summarize them. The tool is sufficiently explained for an agent to understand its purpose, behavior, and output without ambiguity.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (txHash, network). It does not explain what txHash represents or the network options, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool lists every account a transaction touched, derived from metadata (AffectedNodes), and positions it as the authoritative participant list. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_transaction or simulate_transaction.

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 implicitly advises using this over guesses from tx fields, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. It provides good context but could be more direct.

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