decode_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it states the output includes actions and effects, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, mention prerequisites, or describe error behavior. This leaves significant transparency gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The description is a single concise and front-loaded sentence. It wastes no words, directly stating the verb and resource, and adds a brief scoping clause about actions and effects.

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?

The tool has a clear three-parameter schema but no output schema, so the description must compensate for missing return-value details. It partially does by mentioning actions and effects, but lacks information about output format, error handling, or network-specific behavior. The description is adequate but leaves gaps given the lack of structured output metadata.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, including default and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs 'decodes and explains' and a specific resource 'NEAR transaction', clearly distinguishing it from the contract-oriented sibling tools. Mentioning 'all actions and their effects' further clarifies the scope, making the purpose explicit and 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?

The description implies usage for decoding transactions, which is distinct from the contract-focused siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance remains only implicit.

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