Submit Transaction

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, destructive operation. The description adds that it returns confirmation or validation error details, which is useful output context, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as required permissions or network conditions.

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?

Very concise with a front-loaded purpose statement. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly redundant given the schema, though not harmful.

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 with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides the essential purpose, parameter, and return information. It is adequate, though it could mention prerequisites.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats the schema's description verbatim, adding no new semantic information.

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 (submit) and resource (signed transaction) and scope (to the blockchain via the node). It distinguishes from sibling transaction tools by focusing on submission, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies the need for a signed transaction file but doesn't state prerequisites or how it relates to siblings like cardano_transaction_build or cardano_transaction_sign.

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