get_transaction_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the supported protocol (eth only) and the cost (100 credits), which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens with invalid hashes, whether it is read-only, or other behavioral aspects beyond the cost and protocol limitation.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, an Args section with clear labels, and a cost note. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The existence of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential inputs, protocol constraint, and cost. It lacks some usage guidance, but that is addressed in dimension 2; for the tool's operational context, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It defines 'proto' as the blockchain protocol and notes only eth is supported, and it provides a concrete example for 'hash'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could be more explicit about possible proto values.

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 transaction data with graph structures, specifying a concrete action and resource. The mention of 'graph structures' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_detail.

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 for visualization and relationship analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It also notes 'currently only eth supported', which is a useful constraint but not a usage guideline.

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