transactions_data_kaspa

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 cost and where actual credits appear, and implies a read-only lookup, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and response behavior.

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 network are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by concise credit information. The leading tool-name restatement is slightly redundant, but the overall definition is compact.

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 lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the response structure or operational constraints an agent might need.

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 all three parameters. The description mentions transaction ID and mainnet but adds no format or usage detail beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: get transaction details by transaction ID. It scopes to Kaspa mainnet, which differentiates it from sibling transaction tools for UTXO, EVM, Solana, and XRP.

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 does not explain when to use this tool instead of the sibling transaction-data tools. It only states the network is mainnet, leaving alternative selection to the agent's inference.

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