explain_digidollar_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses fixture vs live resolution, the ALLOW_NETWORK gating, the unverified-fixture caveat, read-only behavior, and that inferences are marked Unverified. It also explains the burn calculation rather than hiding it.

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 dense but information-rich and front-loaded with the core purpose before details. The product name and lookup UI are useful context but slightly peripheral for an agent selecting/invoking the tool, keeping it from a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and caveats in enough detail to set expectations. It could be more complete about error behavior (e.g., missing fixture with ALLOW_NETWORK unset) and about how it relates to decode_dd_opreturn, but it is mostly sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already covers txid well ('64-hex DigiByte transaction id'), so schema coverage is 100%; baseline is 3. The description adds little about parameter formatting beyond referring to 'txid' and the TXID.json filename, which does not materially extend the schema.

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 opening phrase names a specific verb and resource ('Explain a DigiDollar transaction ... from its txid') and lists distinctive outputs, so the function is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling decode_dd_opreturn, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 operational context (fixture-first, live only when ALLOW_NETWORK=1) and a warning about fixtures, but it never states when to choose this over decode_dd_opreturn or when not to use it. Usage is therefore mostly implied rather than explicitly routed.

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