get_transaction_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions a cost of 50 credits. It does not describe read-only safety, failure modes, latency, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 brief and well-organized with a clear purpose line, an args section, and cost. Every line adds value without redundancy, though the format could be more polished.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered externally. The description explains parameters and cost, but it lacks any comparative usage context against 20 sibling tools and does not mention edge cases or prerequisites. It is adequate for a straightforward lookup but not fully complete.

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?

The description provides detailed meaning for both parameters, including the allowed protocol values (btc, eth, xrp, hash) and a concrete example hash. This significantly compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 retrieves detailed on-chain information for a specific blockchain transaction, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_transaction_graph, but the scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, and no exclusions or comparable sibling tools are mentioned. The description focuses solely on what the tool does, not on usage context.

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