get_indexed_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it uses a blockchain indexer (not direct RPC), provides data enrichment (resolved addresses, spent/unspent status), and implements fallback logic to mempool.space. Minor gap: doesn't mention caching, rate limits, or error behaviors.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: opening sentence states purpose, second paragraph differentiates from siblings, third sentence notes fallback behavior, and Args section documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is complete. It covers purpose, sibling differentiation, fallback behavior, and parameter semantics for the single-parameter tool. No gaps remain for the agent to invoke this correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only 'title': 'Txid' and type: string). The description compensates fully by documenting the txid parameter format: 'Transaction ID (64-character hex string)', adding critical semantic constraints missing from 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 specific action ('Get enriched transaction details'), the resource (transactions), and the source ('blockchain indexer'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool analyze_transaction by contrasting 'enriched' indexed data against 'raw RPC' data.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by contrasting with analyze_transaction: 'Unlike analyze_transaction (which uses raw RPC), this returns resolved input addresses...' This tells the agent to use this tool when needing resolved addresses, spent/unspent status, and block context rather than raw data.

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