Get transactions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the not_found handling for unreadable digests, the batch performance benefit, and the exact list of returned fields (sender, status, timing, balance changes, Move call targets, events with decoded fields, protocols). This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core capability, but it is somewhat verbose, blending purpose, return details, and usage guidance into a long paragraph. It earns its length by covering multiple important aspects, but it could be tightened without losing value.

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 batch tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It specifies the batch limit (50), the handling of missing digests (not_found), the content of the response per transaction, and the exact routing rule versus the single-transaction sibling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantic detail beyond restating the batch concept and the not_found behavior. It does not introduce new parameter-level nuance, so a 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('up to 50 Sui transactions') and the required parameter ('digests'). It explicitly contrasts with siblings like get_transaction, making its purpose 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever you hold several digests at once' and explicitly names the alternative: 'For ONE transaction, or for a transaction with more than 50 events, prefer get_transaction.' This is exactly the level of routing an agent needs.

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