get_transaction_from_pending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that this is from the pending pool, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, return format, or the volatility of pending transactions.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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-only get-by-ID tool, the description adequately states what it does, and the schema/annotations cover parameters and safety. The only minor gap is lack of mention of the return value format, but 'details' implies the transaction object is returned, which is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters (txId and network) have full descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new information beyond restating that the lookup is by transaction ID, so it doesn't enhance understanding beyond 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), the resource (transaction details), and the scope (from the pending pool) using the transaction ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction (on-chain) and get_pending_transactions (list).

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 use case for retrieving a single pending transaction by ID, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_transaction or get_transaction_by_id. The 'pending pool' scope provides clear context for when to use this tool, though no exclusions are mentioned.

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