get_transaction_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the output categories (receipt/confirmation status, energy usage, logs), which is useful, but it does not cover error behavior, return format, or latency/confirmation timing.

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 with a parenthetical clarifying the content. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly 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?

With no output schema, the description lists the main return categories but does not explain the response structure, behavior for invalid hashes, or whether confirmation is required. For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is minimally acceptable but leaves 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters: txHash is described as 'Transaction hash' and network as 'Network name. Defaults to mainnet.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 operation ('Get transaction info') and specifies the content (receipt/confirmation status, energy usage, logs). It is a specific verb+resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_transaction_info_by_id or get_transaction.

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 get_transaction, get_transaction_info_by_id, or get_events_by_transaction_id. The description only states what the tool does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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