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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description's added value is the unit semantics — amounts are whole ADA and decimal-adjusted tokens — which prevents misinterpretation of raw values, though it says nothing about behavior for an unknown or unconfirmed hash.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, and no filler. The first sentence is a dense field list but every item is informative rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields and their units, which is enough to call the tool and read results. It stops short of covering not-found/pending-transaction behavior, the one remaining gap for a single-param lookup.

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?

Input is a single required `hash` at 100% schema coverage, with the schema already stating '64 hex characters' and the pattern. 'By hash' in the description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented params applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (a Cardano transaction) and the lookup key (by hash), then enumerates the exact contents returned: block, time, fee, per-address ADA/token deltas, mint/burn, certificates, withdrawals, DEX swaps and NFT sales. That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like get_block, get_address, get_recent_trades and get_wallet_activity.

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?

Usage is only implied by the returned-content list; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus get_block (parent block) or get_recent_trades (list browsing). No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer selection from the resource name.

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