Get transaction status

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a useful behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. However, it does not describe what the confirmation status looks like (e.g., pending/confirmed/failed) or any error behavior, leaving a notable gap.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only the most relevant extra context (example and read-only hint).

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, example input source, and safety indicator. It falls just short of a 5 because it omits what the response contains (e.g., status values).

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 signature parameter (coverage 100%). The description adds the example 'one returned by execute_swap', which helps clarify where to obtain the signature but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('confirmation status of a previously-submitted transaction signature'). It also provides a concrete example ('one returned by execute_swap') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_swap and ping.

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 the tool should be used after a transaction is submitted (e.g., from execute_swap), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The example gives clear contextual guidance, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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