iota_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 disclose two behavioral facts an agent can act on: a $0.002 USDC per-call cost and p99 latency of 2000ms. It also implies a read-only single-record fetch. It omits auth requirements and what happens on an unknown digest, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return contents, then cost and latency — a sensible ordering. The return-field enumeration is long but justified because no output schema exists. It reads as one dense run-on rather than cleanly separated clauses, which is a minor structural weakness.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description does real work: it itemizes the response contents and discloses cost and latency. Missing only error/empty-result behavior and any auth or rate-limit framing, which prevents a 5.

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 single parameter is already 100% described in the schema ('Transaction digest (base58)'), which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that lookup is 'by digest' and pinned to IOTA mainnet, but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema states.

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 verb+resource ('Look up an IOTA mainnet transaction by digest') and even scopes it to the chain and network. It enumerates exactly what comes back (status, checkpoint, sender, Move calls, gas fee, balance changes, objects, events), which cleanly separates it from sibling lookups like evm_tx, btc_tx, sui_tx and from iota_watch/iota_verify.

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?

Offers a clear triggering context: 'Use to confirm a payment or contract call on IOTA.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use iota_watch for live monitoring, iota_verify for notarized proofs), so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance of a 5.

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