get_tx_status

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 what the tool returns (confirmation status, block, gas used, success/revert) which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention timeout behavior for pending transactions or what happens with an invalid hash. The description does a reasonable job but has gaps around error handling.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. States the purpose, the lookup key, and what's returned. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete. It enumerates the returned fields (confirmation status, block, gas used, success/revert) which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema. However, it lacks details on error behaviors (invalid hash, pending tx) that would make it fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke reliably.

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?

There's only one parameter (tx_hash) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds the format detail '0x...' context from the schema but doesn't add much beyond clarifying it's the Base chain transaction hash. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Check), resource (transaction status on Base), and method (by hash). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are about addresses, gas, tokens, allowances, and balances. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any sibling by name.

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 checking transaction outcomes but doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives. It doesn't name any exclusions or alternatives, though the tool's purpose is fairly self-evident given the sibling context (others are about addresses/gas/tokens, not transaction status).

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