pons_tx_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result (status, block, gas used, decoded transfers), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, how an unknown or pending hash is handled, whether lookup is free/unmetered, or how recent the receipt data is.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists the returned fields. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields (status, block, gas, ERC-20 transfers) is doing real work. For a one-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient, though it stops short of covering error/pending behavior, which is the remaining gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it fully (txHash, '0x...'), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no further constraint on the hash string (length, chain-specific format, checksumming) and does not clarify that the hash must belong to Robinhood Chain rather than another network.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('transaction receipt on Robinhood Chain') and even enumerates the payload (status, block, gas used, decoded ERC-20 transfers). That makes it distinguishable in practice from pons_price, pons_balance, or pons_chain_info, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 lookup framing implies when an agent would reach for it (after a broadcast, to confirm outcome or inspect transfers), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to use instead for pending vs. mined transactions, and no exclusions relative to siblings such as pons_quote or pons_chain_info.

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