get_transaction_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already convey safety. The description adds substantial behavioral details: the dropped detection logic on Solana via durableNonce/lastValidBlockHeight, the diagnostic fields returned, and the risk of pending forever without proper fields. However, it does not explicitly mention network error handling or timeouts.

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 dense paragraph that packs a lot of information, but it would benefit from breaking into subsections per chain or usage pattern. It is not overly long, but the structure could be improved for easier parsing by an AI agent.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately covers return values (pending, success, failed, dropped) and special cases (e.g., Solana dropped detection). It does not detail error conditions like network failures or timeouts, but the core behavior is well-explained.

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 descriptive parameter descriptions. The description goes further by explaining the roles of durableNonce and lastValidBlockHeight in drop detection, how they are obtained from send_transaction, and the consequences of missing them. This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool polls transaction status across multiple chains (EVM, Solana, Tron, Bitcoin) and specifies the exact return states (pending/success/failed/dropped). It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_transaction and explain_tx by focusing on post-send polling.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (after sending a transaction) and, for Solana, provides critical guidance on passing the correct drop-detection field (durableNonce or lastValidBlockHeight) to avoid pending forever. It also notes that omitting these fields leads to a known UX gap, effectively telling the agent when not to rely on results.

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