safe_pending_transactionsList Safe transactions queued on the Safe Transaction Service that are waiting for confirmations or execution, so you can identify pending wallet activity before it is finalized.
Lists transactions queued on the Safe Transaction Service that are waiting for confirmations or execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-service profile is covered. The description adds that the source is the Safe Transaction Service, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, result limits, or how the endpoint is scoped (which Safe or network).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and qualifying state both appear before any subordinate clause, so the key information survives a truncated read.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full descriptive burden, yet it never says which Safe or network the results belong to, nor what a returned entry contains or how many come back. For a zero-argument list tool scoped to an external service, that scope ambiguity is a real gap an agent may trip over.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it doesn't waste words on parameter detail.
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?
Specific verb (Lists) plus a well-defined resource (transactions queued on the Safe Transaction Service) with a state qualifier: waiting for confirmations or execution. That state qualifier distinguishes it from a generic transaction history or from safe_confirm_transaction. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it is a 4 rather than a 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 word 'queued' plus 'waiting for confirmations or execution' implies the use case (finding transactions that still need action), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated. An agent could reasonably infer it should call this before safe_confirm_transaction, but that inference is left unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.