get_transaction_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read-only status check (implied by 'Check'), discloses the possible status outcomes with explanations (waiting, pending, success, failure, refund), and provides operational context (Relay handles cross-chain delivery automatically, polling frequency). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core behavioral aspects well.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides status details, and concludes with important usage notes. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value (status explanations, workflow context, polling advice). No redundant or wasted content.

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's moderate complexity (status checking with specific outcomes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the status meanings, workflow integration, and polling behavior. The main gap is lack of explicit return format details, but the status explanations partially compensate for no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's origin ('requestId returned from execute_bridge or from a quote's steps[].requestId') and contextualizing its use in the workflow. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Check the status of a Relay bridge or swap transaction' with the specific verb 'check' and resources 'Relay bridge or swap transaction'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction_history (which retrieves past transactions) and execute_bridge (which initiates transactions).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use ('Use the requestId returned from execute_bridge'), when not to use (the user does NOT need to do anything else after execution completes), and alternatives (implied that other tools like execute_bridge or get_bridge_quote are for different purposes). It also includes polling frequency advice ('Poll every 5-10 seconds').

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