unpack_transaction

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if the transaction lacks Counterparty data. It simply reinforces the read-only nature by using verbs like 'decode' and 'unpack.'

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. No extraneous words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose and the schema covers parameters, but the absence of an output schema and lack of guidance about edge cases or alternative tools leaves some gaps. For example, it doesn't describe the format of the decoded data or what to do if the transaction is not a Counterparty transaction.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (raw_transaction as 'Hex data to unpack (raw transaction hex or Counterparty data hex)' and block_index as optional context). The description itself adds no additional parameter-level information, so it relies entirely on 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 clearly states the tool's action ('decode and unpack') and its target resource ('raw transaction'), specifying that it exposes 'embedded Counterparty data.' This identifies the tool's purpose distinctly from generic decoders, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 implies the use case: when you have a raw transaction and want to extract Counterparty data. It provides a clear context for invocation, but does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use decode_transaction instead.

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