get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (sender, status, gas, events, balance changes, protocol-aware decoded actions), which is valuable behavioral context. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state absence of side effects or failure modes. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and examples of returned data ('swap on Cetus', 'deposit on Suilend'). Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the 100% schema coverage, and the fact that the description lists the return fields, the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. No output schema exists, but the description covers what would otherwise be returned. The only minor omission is explicit error behavior, but that is not critical for this kind of read operation.

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%: both 'digest' and 'network' are fully described in the input schema, including details about defaulting and per-call behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Sui transaction by its digest.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query_transactions' (which searches/filters) and 'get_transaction_history' (which likely lists transactions for a wallet). It also enumerates the key returned data, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this when you have a transaction digest and need full transaction details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the singular 'by its digest' implies a targeted lookup rather than a list query. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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