check_tx_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return statuses (pending, validated, failed, not_found) and engine result code. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the phrasing 'check' and 'validation status' strongly implies a safe read operation.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the second provides usage context and return information. Each sentence earns its place.

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 remarkably complete. It includes the usage context (after send_signed_tx), the return statuses, and the engine result code. Sibling tools like check_order_status are clearly differentiated by the XRPL-specific language.

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 only parameter tx_hash is fully documented in the input schema with a regex pattern and description '64-character hex XRPL transaction hash'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'by hash', so schema coverage is 100% and baseline 3 applies.

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 checks XRPL transaction validation status by hash, using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'validation status of an XRPL transaction'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_order_status by mentioning XRPL and the send_signed_tx context.

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 explicitly says 'Use after send_signed_tx to confirm whether the transaction was validated on-ledger,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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