Decode raw script hex into human-readable opcodes to debug transactions and smart contracts. Works offline without ElectrumX.
Decode raw script hex into human-readable opcodes. Works offline — no ElectrumX connection required. Useful for debugging transactions and smart contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script_hex | Yes | Script in hexadecimal (e.g., '76a91489abcdef...88ac') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does 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 the offline nature ('Works offline — no ElectrumX connection required'), which is a valuable behavioral trait, but it does not mention error handling, input validation, or that it is a read-only operation. For a simple decode tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 long, with the primary action and key behavioral trait (offline) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, but it leaves the return format vague ('human-readable opcodes') and does not specify behavior on invalid hex input. An agent might need more detail on the output structure to use the tool correctly, though the simplicity mitigates the gap.
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 description covers the single parameter (script_hex) with an example, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
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 states a specific verb ('Decode'), a resource ('raw script hex'), and an output ('human-readable opcodes'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools, even without explicitly naming an alternative.
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 offers a use case ('Useful for debugging transactions and smart contracts') but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like radiant_compile_script. The guidance is contextual but not explicit enough to steer an agent away from other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.