tx-explainer

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it uses free public JSON-RPC nodes, no API key required, and results in ~1-2s. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but is otherwise transparent.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose and output, followed by chain support and performance notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists many output fields, making return format clear. It covers supported chains and speed. Missing error scenarios but overall complete for typical use.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by stating default chain is Ethereum and listing supported chains (Base, Polygon, Arbitrum), which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 it decodes a transaction hash into a detailed breakdown, listing specific output fields and supported chains. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, and emphasizes it uses free public nodes.

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 decoded transaction details, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like 'tx-intel' or state when not to use it. However, context of free public nodes and supported chains gives good guidance.

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