tx_decode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data comes 'straight from Base RPC,' implying a real-time read operation. It does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple query tool, this is adequate. The description does not contradict any hidden behaviors.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 23 words. It front-loads the action ('Provide a Base transaction hash and get...') and lists key outputs efficiently. No extraneous information is present, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: from/to, ETH value, status, gas used, block, method selector, and nonce. It also clarifies the data source. For a tool with one parameter and no nested objects, this provides complete contextual information.

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% with the parameter 'hash' described as 'Transaction hash.' The description adds value by specifying 'Base transaction hash,' clarifying the blockchain context. This extra detail helps the agent understand the required input beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'structured summary' of a Base transaction. It lists specific fields (from/to, ETH value, status, gas used, block, method selector, nonce), making the tool's purpose precise and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like decode_selector, which focuses only on method selectors.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when you have a Base transaction hash and want a summary. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., decode_selector for just method selectors). This lack of exclusions or context reduces guidance.

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