explorer_get_tx_details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the included data (decoded input parameters and token movements), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the simple tool signature (two parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. However, it lacks any note on how this differs from related explorer tools, and it doesn't mention any limitations or network-specific behavior, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions (txHash format and chainId required). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'full transaction details' with concrete inclusions (decoded input parameters and token movements). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_tx_receipt or explorer_get_tx_history, which focus on receipt or history only.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention any exclusions or point to sibling tools for other cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic description.

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