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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details' which indicates a read operation, but gives no information about return format, possible errors (e.g., invalid signature), permissions, rate limits, or what 'full details' actually includes. This is a minimal disclosure that goes little beyond the tool's purpose.

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, short sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively simple. However, 'full details' is vague—it does not enumerate what details are returned (e.g., timestamp, fee, status), which is significant because there is no output schema to clarify. It also does not link to sibling tools to help the AI choose among them. Thus, while adequate for a basic getter, it leaves notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that the 'signature' parameter identifies the transaction ('by its signature'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not specify the expected format or any constraints (e.g., length, encoding), which prevents a higher score.

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 action: 'Get full details for a transaction by its signature.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), and the parameter ('signature') is included. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_signatures_for_address, which lists signatures rather than retrieving full details for one.

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 implies usage: when you have a signature and want full transaction details, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, no alternatives are named, and no distinction from other siblings (e.g., get_signatures_for_address) is provided. Thus guidance is implied but not explicit.

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