speed_up_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the action (resubmitting with higher gas price) and the limitation (pending only), but does not disclose potential consequences such as the original transaction being replaced, gas cost implications, or failure if the transaction is already mined. This is basic but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 two short sentences, with no redundant filler. The first sentence states the core action and method, and the second adds a necessary constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 transaction mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the main behavior and a key condition, but lacks details about return values, error cases, and side effects. Given the sibling tools (e.g., cancel_transaction), it could also benefit from cross-referencing alternatives.

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 all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only says 'higher gas price' which maps directly to the gasPriceMultiplier parameter already described in the schema.

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 ('Speed up') and resource ('pending transaction'), and states the mechanism ('resubmitting it with higher gas price'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like cancel_transaction and simulate_transaction.

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 states the precondition ('Only works for pending transactions'), which provides a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope constraint is sufficient for a terse tool description.

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