crypto.tx

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns transaction status and receipt details, mentions live status, and error handling (404). It covers idempotency implicitly (lookup) but lacks explicit statements on auth or rate limits.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose and key details in a single sentence, followed by chains, usage guidance, and error handling. Minor improvement could be structuring the returned fields list more cleanly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the returned fields, supported chains, and error case, making it complete for an agent to understand correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The description lists the chains for the 'chain' parameter and describes the hash as '0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash,' adding value beyond the schema (which only describes hash). It compensates for the schema's 50% parameter description coverage.

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's function: retrieving live EVM transaction status and receipt by hash, listing specific fields and supported chains. It distinctly addresses transaction lookup, differentiating from sibling tools like crypto.address-validate or crypto.gas-oracle.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Confirm a payment settled or a tx reverted before acting.' It also notes a 404 response for unknown hashes but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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