Robinhood Chain transaction lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the cost (up to $0.005 per call) and the return fields, adding context beyond the schema. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed information is substantial.

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: the first states the purpose and return data, the second states the pricing. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool without an output schema, the description lists the expected output fields and the cost, which covers the essential context. It does not address error handling or not-found cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for such a simple lookup tool.

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%, with the parameter 'hash' already described as 'Transaction hash (0x...).' The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'transaction on Robinhood Chain', and enumerates the specific data fields returned (status, method, from/to, value, fee, block, timestamp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhchain_wallet or rhchain_token_screener, which serve different purposes.

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 sets a clear context by specifying that this is for querying a transaction by hash, and it also notes the tool is paid, which is a relevant usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though sibling names provide some implicit guidance.

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