Verify Transaction

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact on-chain memo checked ('solentic.theblueprint.xyz') and that it provides 'cryptographic proof', going beyond annotations to explain the verification mechanism.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. No extraneous words; every part 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 simple verification tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the verification method (on-chain memo check). The only minor gap is that it does not specify the return value (likely boolean), but this is implied by the verb 'verify'.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'signature' already described as 'Transaction signature to verify'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: verifying if a Solana transaction was built through Blueprint by checking for a specific on-chain memo. It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (transaction), and the method (memo check) distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance or check_address_type.

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 context on what the tool does (verifying Blueprint-built transactions) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given the many sibling tools, implicit usage guidance is present but not explicit.

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