Lookup a submitted trade by transaction hash and chain

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior the structured fields cannot convey: two result tiers, the ~20-24 min finality lag on Base, finality-fencing, and the guarantee that 'not_found' is never returned for a seen transaction so polling never regresses. This is exactly the kind of extra context that lifts it above the annotation baseline.

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?

It is front-loaded and the closing imperative ('Act on provisional; settle on finalized') earns its place, but the middle is dense with compressed jargon ('finality-fenced', 'carries the envelope itself') that adds parsing cost for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the tiering model, latency expectations, and the not_found semantics an agent needs to poll correctly. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters (txHash, chainId) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning about what the lookup returns but no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Look up a submitted trade by transaction hash') and frames its role as 'the by-tx path for crash recovery', which implicitly distinguishes it from the list/market-oriented siblings like problee_list_trade_fills and problee_get_market_trades. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance ('crash recovery') and a decision rule for the two result tiers ('Act on provisional; settle on finalized'). It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this tool over the trade-listing siblings, leaving that comparison to inference.

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