transactions_data_utxo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It provides useful cost information (credits per action/blockchain, indicators, headers) but omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special authorization. Some behavioral context is present but key traits are missing.

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?

Purpose and key lists are front-loaded, but the credit list is duplicated for both actions despite identical values and the disclaimer could be trimmed. Moderately structured with noticeable 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers actions, supported chains, networks, and costs. It still lacks guidance on action selection and expected response differences between the two actions, which are important for a two-action tool. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the action, blockchain, and network enums and adds credit costs per combination, which gives extra meaning for action selection. However, it does not clarify transactionHash format or context usage 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?

States a specific verb 'get' and resources 'transaction details or raw transaction data by hash', and lists supported blockchains and networks. This indirectly distinguishes it from siblings like transactions_data_evm, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions. Clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 lists the two actions but provides no guidance on when to use each, nor when to prefer this tool over sibling transaction tools. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are given. Essentially no usage guidelines beyond the action enumeration.

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