polygon_tx

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC) and lists output content categories, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. It neither contradicts annotations (none exist) nor fully covers transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the commercial constraint is cleanly appended in the second. Every word 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely sufficient: it specifies the input (polygon transaction hash), the output areas (status, block, gas, transfer), and the cost. It does not detail the exact return structure or error cases, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully describes the hash parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial semantic detail that the hash is for a Polygon transaction, which disambiguates it from EVM-chain sibling tools and gives meaning beyond the raw schema text.

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 identifies the resource (polygon transaction hash) and the deliverable (status, block, gas, and transfer summary), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polygon_balance or polygon_block. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve,' making it slightly less crisp than a fully specific verb+resource definition.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as base_tx for Base transactions or polygon_balance for balances. Usage is only vaguely implied by the name and the mention of 'polygon transaction hash'; there are no when-not conditions or sibling references.

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