chain_tx

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the x402/USDC pricing model, API-key alternative, and the HTTP 402 quote behavior, which is explicitly framed as a price quote rather than a failure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact example, usage boundaries, and payment behavior. Each section adds useful information without 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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the returned transaction fields. Annotations cover safety traits, and the description covers the unusual payment/402 behavior, leaving no major gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents hash and chain thoroughly, including the default chain and accepted values. The description's example reinforces usage but does not add parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: transaction lookup by hash, and it enumerates the returned fields (status, block, from/to, value, nonce, gas, logs). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from account-level siblings chain_balance and chain_nonce.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: when you need status and details of a transaction by hash. It also gives a when-not-to-use condition and names the alternatives to use for account-level data.

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