transactions_data_evm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses credit costs per action and blockchain, which is a trait beyond the schema, but does not state read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or what each action returns.

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 purpose and actions are front-loaded, and the credit table, while long, provides actionable cost data. Some repetition in the credits section is minor.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values for each action and behavior like authentication or error handling. It covers costs but leaves the agent without enough to interpret results or handle all four actions confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond repeating the action enum values; blockchain, network, and transactionHash receive no extra meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and the resources (transaction details, internal transactions, token transfers, logs) scoped by transaction hash, and lists the four actions clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like transactions_data_utxo, though the 'EVM' in the name implies chain scope.

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 on when to choose one action over another, nor when to use this tool versus the UTXO/Solana/XRP/Kaspa siblings. Only an implicit 'use it to get transaction data' is present.

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