Get a P-Chain transaction by its transaction ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txID | Yes | The CB58-encoded transaction ID | |
| network | No | Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) | |
| encoding | No | Encoding format for the transaction (default: json) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a safe read, but it does not describe the response structure, what is included in the transaction object, error behavior for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. The encoding parameter hints at response format but is not explained in the description.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('P-Chain transaction').
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?
For a simple transaction getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It lacks usage guidance and response details, but it clearly states the core function. Given the many sibling tools, it could benefit from differentiation, but the basic purpose is covered.
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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (txID as CB58-encoded, network with enum, encoding with enum). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; it only restates that the tool retrieves by txID.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Get a P-Chain transaction') and specifies the lookup key ('by its transaction ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like platform_get_tx_status (which only returns status) and blockchain_lookup_transaction (which may cover other chains).
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that platform_get_tx_status should be used for status-only queries, nor does it note any prerequisites such as the transaction needing to exist on the P-Chain. The only implied use is 'have a P-Chain transaction ID and want the full transaction.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
