kaspa_tx_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the interpretation of mempool absence and the cost. It doesn't mention error cases or limits, but the behavior is fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds critical usage nuance and cost information. Very efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, interpretation, alternative, and cost. Minor omission of status values or error handling, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the txid parameter beyond its name. It doesn't provide format, examples, or constraints, so the agent lacks guidance on how to specify the transaction ID.

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 explicitly states it returns the mempool status of a Kaspa transaction, and clarifies the meaning of absence. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kaspa_utxos and kaspa_balance by its specific function.

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?

It provides clear guidance: if transaction is absent from mempool, it could be accepted or unknown, and suggests using kaspa_utxos to confirm. Also mentions the cost, aiding decision-making.

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