sui_tx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses mainnet scope, plain JSON output, per-call cost, and p99 latency, but omits read-only/idempotency status, not-found error behavior, and authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with purpose and identifier, followed by a compact return-field list and two short operational sentences. Every element earns its place, particularly the field enumeration since no output schema exists.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the chain, lookup key, returned fields, cost, and latency. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor edge-case/error detail missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole digest parameter is already documented as base58 in the schema. The description adds no format, validation, or alternative beyond what the schema supplies, 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?

States a specific verb (Lookup) and resource (Sui mainnet transaction) with the required identifier (digest), and enumerates returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from chain-specific siblings such as evm_tx, iota_tx, and btc_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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among sui_address, sui_network, sui_watch, evm_tx, or iota_tx. An agent can infer it looks up a transaction by digest, but must guess the selection criteria relative to sibling tools.

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