decode_dd_opreturn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explicitly states no network access, offline execution, read-only behavior, and the output scope limitation (no entity labeling). It does not cover error behavior on malformed hex, which is a minor gap for a decode tool.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative: core purpose, return values, and behavioral constraints. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 single-parameter offline decode tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents (kind, amounts in cents, fields), and behavioral traits. It is somewhat vague on what 'and fields' means and does not address invalid-input handling, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single parameter scriptPubKeyHex is already documented as an OP_RETURN scriptPubKey in hex typically starting with 6a. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('decode'), a specific resource (DigiDollar OP_RETURN scriptPubKey hex), names the implementation path (parseDDOpReturn), and spells out the return values: consensus type byte kind (mint/transfer/redeem), amounts in cents, and fields. The closing 'Does not label entities' differentiates it from the sibling explain_digidollar_tx.

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 establishes clear usage context: a quick offline decode of scriptPubKey hex with no network dependency and read-only guarantees. It gives a negative signal ('Does not label entities') but stops short of explicitly naming explain_digidollar_tx as the alternative or stating when to prefer one over the other.

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