get_pending_transaction_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add one important detail: the count is calculated as the difference between pending and latest nonce. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any edge cases, so it is only partially transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a helpful parenthetical calculation detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 well-documented parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the core functionality and calculation, but lacks usage context, alternative guidance, and explicit return type (though implied by 'number'). The gap in usage guidelines prevents a higher score.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making it sufficient but not enhanced.

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 action ('Get the number of pending transactions for an address') and adds precision by defining the count as the difference between pending and latest nonce. It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_pending_transactions_info.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the difference from get_pending_transactions_info or any other related tool, nor does it provide context on when this lightweight count is appropriate. The parenthetical about nonce is a technical definition, not a usage guideline.

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