zetrix_submit_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool submits for 'execution,' implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, irreversible effects, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters blockchain state.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a mutation tool with significant behavioral gaps. The description doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. It's incomplete for a tool that submits transactions to a blockchain.

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%, with clear parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond implying 'signed' relates to 'signatures,' which is already covered in the schema. No compensation is needed or provided.

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 action ('submit') and target ('signed transaction to blockchain for execution'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'zetrix_ws_submit_transaction' or 'zetrix_test_transaction', which appear to serve similar submission functions, preventing a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zetrix_ws_submit_transaction' (WebSocket-based) and 'zetrix_test_transaction' (likely for testing), there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no context or exclusions.

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