get_transaction_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by enumerating the receipt payload (status, blockNumber, gasUsed, contractAddress, logs count) in lieu of an output schema. It says nothing about edge cases such as pending or unknown hashes (typically null), error behavior, or rate limits.

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 compact sentence with the resource stated first and the return fields listed after; nothing is padded. The colon-separated field list is terse but readable and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the receipt fields is genuinely useful, but the definition omits the sibling disambiguation and the pending/unknown-transaction behavior that would let an agent call it confidently in all cases.

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 txHash format ('0x + 64 hex') and the network values ('mainnet or kairos', default mainnet) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get transaction receipt') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_transaction, which an agent could easily confuse it with since both concern transactions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_transaction or any other sibling, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a confirmed/mined transaction. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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