Decode Stellar transaction XDR into human-readable JSON for easy inspection, debugging, and verification of blockchain transaction data.
Decode transaction XDR to human-readable JSON
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_xdr | Yes | Transaction XDR to decode (base64) | |
| output_format | No | Output format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only transformation ('decode to JSON') but says nothing about error behavior on invalid XDR, input encoding assumptions, or whether the operation is side-effect free. For a decode tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead the statement, and every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and for a decode tool the resulting JSON structure is nontrivial yet unexplained. Combined with the lack of sibling differentiation against stellar_xdr_decode, the description is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (tx_xdr as base64, output_format enum). The description's 'human-readable JSON' only loosely gestures at the output_format enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema 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?
States a specific verb (Decode), resource (transaction XDR), and output type (human-readable JSON), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling stellar_xdr_decode, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the transaction-specific variant or redundant.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., requiring valid base64 XDR), and no mention of alternatives such as stellar_xdr_decode or stellar_xdr_guess. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.