evm_get_transaction

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already declare the safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or chainId semantics, offering minimal value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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 simple read operation with annotations and schema covering parameters, the description is sufficient. However, it does not specify the exact return payload or explicitly differentiate from similar transaction-related tools, leaving minor 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both txHash and chainId. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('transaction details') for a given hash. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like explorer_get_tx_details or evm_get_transaction_receipt, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 versus alternatives such as evm_get_transaction_receipt or explorer_get_tx_details. There is also no mention of the chainId default behavior or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-supporting context.

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