get_transaction_status

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that quotes expire, returns rich data including fees and failure reasons, and references potential 'not found' outcomes with a resolution path. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but is sufficiently transparent for a status-check tool.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by details and usage notes. It is concise but not overly terse; each sentence adds value, though the status list could be slightly more compact.

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 status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers identifiers, expiration, status progression, and fallback to index_transaction. This is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool, given the complexity of bridge/swap transactions.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that requestId comes from a previous quote/execution and txHash is on-chain, and that they are mutually exclusive. This contextual information aids correct invocation.

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 checks the status of a Relay bridge or swap transaction. It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'transaction status', and distinguishes from siblings like index_transaction and get_transaction_history by focusing on status lookup.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use requestId vs txHash, notes quote expiration (30 seconds), and provides a fallback: if 'not found', use index_transaction. Also describes the status flow, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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