koios_submittx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core write action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., network submission, possible rejection), required permissions, idempotency, or return value. An agent cannot infer what happens after submission or what error conditions may arise.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 single parameter and a clear action, but no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core operation but omits behavioral context (e.g., what the API returns, failure modes, or whether the transaction is broadcast synchronously). It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the parameter meaning ('CBOR-encoded hex string') but adds no extra details like size limits or encoding requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and identifies the resource ('already serialized transaction (CBOR-encoded hex string)') and target ('Cardano network'), clearly distinguishing it from all read-only sibling tools. It is concise and unambiguous about the action performed.

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 use case — when you have a serialized transaction to submit — but does not state prerequisites (e.g., transaction must be signed) or exclusions. It also does not explicitly distinguish from potential alternatives like koios_ogmios, though the serialized-transaction framing offers some context.

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