get_contract_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for safety and behavior disclosure. It adds value by revealing a cost of 300 credits and mentioning what information is returned (input data, state changes, execution results). It does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by concise parameter details and cost. The example hash is useful and not excessive. The 'Args:'/'Cost:' formatting is slightly non-standard but requires minimal extra reading.

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 tool with two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it does not clarify how this differs from closely related sibling tools like get_transaction_detail or get_transaction_graph, leaving the agent to infer the right selection. The behavior 'state changes' is mentioned but not elaborated, which may be a gap for complex contract analysis.

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, and it does thoroughly. Both parameters are explained: proto has allowed values (eth, bnb) and transaction_hash includes a full example. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent the needed context to construct valid arguments.

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 action ('Retrieve detailed information for smart contract transactions') and identifies the resource scope ('smart contract transactions'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction_detail by focusing on contract-related details, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 the tool is used for smart contract transaction analysis, and the parameters (proto, transaction_hash) provide context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_transaction_detail or other sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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