1s_tx_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status with numeric mapping, gas used, logs, and contract address. It mentions 'via RPC' implying network access, but does not elaborate on read-only behavior, idempotency, or rate limits. Some behavioral info is present but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with action and output summary. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose and return fields, second provides usage guidance. No waste.

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?

Tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. Description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling. No major gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, only describes output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get a transaction receipt via RPC' and lists specific return fields (status, gas used, logs, contract address). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 1s_tx_details_live, making purpose very clear.

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 clear guidance by suggesting when to use the alternative sibling tool (1s_tx_details_live) for combined data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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