get_events_for_tx

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'indexed events', implying not all events, yet does not disclose ordering, pagination, or potential limits. No mention of whether events are sorted or if there are any size constraints.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks information about the return format (e.g., fields in each event). Sibling tools like get_transaction may offer more detail, but this standalone is minimally sufficient.

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% (tx_hash described as 'Transaction hash'), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'indexed events emitted by a transaction', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_transaction or list_events. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (events for a single tx vs all events).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_events for cross-tx events or get_transaction for transaction details. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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