Failed 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. It discloses the return payload shape at a high level (raw error + class), but says nothing about ordering, result volume, pagination behavior, or whether the call is read-only — leaving most behavioral traits unrevealed for a 5-parameter 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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the return content front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-separated filter clause is slightly clipped but stays efficient.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five optional parameters, the description should explain defaults, result ordering, and the meaning of since_height / pagination. It covers only the two self-documenting filters, so an agent still lacks what it needs to page through results or scope by height.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning for two filters (realm, class) but is silent on since_height, limit, and offset. The two filter semantics are already fully documented in the schema, so the description contributes little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific resource (failed transactions) plus the payload it returns (raw chain error and error class), which distinguishes it from the generic gno_get_transactions sibling. No explicit sibling reference is made, but the failure-focused scope is unambiguous.

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?

'filter by realm or class' implies how to narrow results but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and never names the alternative transaction tool for successful/normal transaction lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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