search_cosmos_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches transactions but does not describe key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., transaction details or IDs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Search Cosmos transactions by events.' There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool's complexity (searching transactions across blockchains), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error cases. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context for effective tool use is insufficient, especially for a search operation that likely returns multiple results.

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 description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already fully documents the parameters (blockchain, events, network). The description's mention of 'by events' aligns with the schema but offers no additional details, such as event format examples or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Search Cosmos transactions by events.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Cosmos transactions'), and method ('by events'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cosmos_transaction' or 'query_sui_transactions,' which reduces its score from 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_cosmos_transaction' (which might fetch a single transaction) or 'query_sui_transactions' (for other blockchains). Without such context, users must infer usage, making it minimally helpful.

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