trace_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions ML anomaly detection but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data requirements, rate limits, whether it modifies data, or what the graph output includes. The description is vague on these aspects.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured to include guidelines or behavioral notes without adding length.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context about the output (returns graph of addresses and transfers). It does not explain the structure of the graph or how anomaly detection influences results. Complete but lacking detail.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, and does not explain default depth or how the parameters relate to the graph output.

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 traces fund flows for a transaction with ML anomaly detection, and returns a graph of addresses and transfers. This distinctively specifies what the tool does and its output, but could differentiate more from sibling tools like detect_coinjoin or cluster_wallet.

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 implies usage for tracing transactions with anomaly detection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like check_address_risk or batch_screening. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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