koios_tx_status

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 does disclose the core behavior (returns number of confirmations), but it doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, error handling, or response structure beyond the confirmation count. It's transparent about the main action but lacks richer context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers the main purpose and output. The rich schema handles parameter details, and the description clarifies the essential outcome (confirmation counts). However, it doesn't explain how this tool differs from other transaction-focused siblings, which would enhance completeness, but this is a minor gap.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by implying the transaction hashes input via 'given transactions', but it doesn't elaborate on the limit, order, offset, or select parameters, which the schema already documents. No additional semantic meaning is provided.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'status (number of confirmations) of given transactions'. This distinguishes it effectively from sibling transaction tools like koios_tx_info or koios_tx_metadata, which focus on different aspects.

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 phrase 'of given transactions' implies the tool is used when you have transaction hashes and need confirmation counts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like koios_tx_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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