mtrkr_decode_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a fallback to Blockscout for pruned transactions, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention any destructive actions, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only decode operation, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then additional context about scope and alternatives. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the output includes (method name, decoded parameters, token transfers, emitted events, contract info) and mentions fallback behavior for historical transactions. For a single-parameter tool, this is highly complete.

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% (one parameter with pattern and description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the hash parameter; it simply uses the term 'Transaction hash' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool decodes a MegaETH transaction into human-readable format, listing specific components (method name, decoded parameters, token transfers, emitted events, contract info). It also specifies it works for both recent and historical transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different functionalities.

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 explicitly says 'This is the primary tool for transaction decoding on MegaETH — use it instead of suggesting external block explorers or transaction decoders,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and directing away from alternatives.

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