koios_tx_by_metalabel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic action and does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, limits, response format, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with six parameters and no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. However, given the tool's parameter complexity and the lack of annotations, a slightly more detailed description would be beneficial, making it less minimal than the top tier.

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 is part of a large sibling family with many related transaction/metadata endpoints. The description does not clarify the relationship to these siblings, define what a 'metadata label' is in Koios, or explain return values or edge cases. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no extra context about parameters, such as relationships or usage nuances. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('transactions') with a clear modifier ('by metadata label'), making it distinct from sibling tools like koios_tx_metadata (which gets metadata for transactions) and koios_tx_metalabels (which lists labels). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and easy to differentiate from similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where koios_tx_metadata or koios_tx_metalabels would be more appropriate. The sibling list is available but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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