tx-intel

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 the payment requirement (x402), cost ($0.006/call), and free upstream sources. However, it is unclear about the 18-wallet and 8-day persistence behavior—whether results are cached or require wallet setup. Some behavioral aspects are vague.

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 clearly structured with key information upfront (purpose, return fields), but it includes extraneous marketing details such as the pricing comparison with x402.ottoai.services, which adds length without aiding tool selection. It could be more concise by omitting the price comparison.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of return fields (status, type, summary, token transfers, gas cost, block context, explorer URL). It also covers supported chains and parameter defaults. However, it does not describe the exact format of the human-readable summary or how errors are returned, leaving some gaps.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by listing supported chains (Base default, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, BSC) and explaining the purpose of 'include_block_context' with specific fields like base_fee, tx_count, miner. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 decodes and explains any EVM transaction, with specific verb 'decode and explain' and resource 'EVM transaction'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it collapses the tx-explainer + block agent seam, making its combined purpose clear.

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 when to use this tool vs alternatives by stating it 'collapses the observed tx-explainer + onesource/block agent seam', indicating it replaces that combination. It also lists supported chains and mentions pricing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with siblings like tx-explainer or block-intel.

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