index_transaction

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a write operation and what it does ('tells Relay's indexer to look at a specific transaction'). It also mentions the response confirms acceptance. Could add idempotency or error handling details, but sufficient.

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 short paragraphs. First sentence states purpose, then usage condition. Second paragraph adds behavioral note and response. No filler, 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?

Given no output schema, description mentions response confirms acceptance. For a simple index trigger, this is adequate alongside siblings. No missing behavior expectations.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by detailing txHash formats (EVM 0x-prefixed, Bitcoin 64 hex, Solana base58) and clarifying chainId accepts ID or name – beyond what schema provides.

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's action ('index a transaction') and resource ('transaction'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction_status by explaining the specific use case: when a transaction exists on-chain but isn't in Relay's system.

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 provides when to use: 'when a bridge or swap transaction exists on-chain but doesn't appear in Relay's system (e.g. get_transaction_status returns "not found")'. This directly guides the agent away from other tools.

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