dero_get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: each transaction returns confirmation status, block hash, and optionally decoded JSON fields, and it clarifies the difference between raw blobs and decoded payloads. This goes beyond the annotations while remaining consistent with them.

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 well-organized into summary, when-to-call, critical input requirements, and output format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each section earns its place with actionable guidance. No fluff or redundant prose beyond useful emphasis.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape clearly: `{ txs: [...], txs_as_hex: [...] }` with per-transaction confirmation, block hash, and decoded fields when requested. It also covers required input format, optional parameter behavior, and related tools, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds a modest clarification that decode_as_json should preferably be 1 and that it switches from raw blobs to JSON-decoded fields, but much of the input requirement text repeats schema constraints such as non-empty and 64-char hex. This is above baseline but not a major semantic addition.

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 verb and resource: "Fetch one or more transactions by hash via DERO.GetTransaction." It also mentions when to call and how to pair with dero_get_sc, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling trace_transaction_with_context, which could also be used for hash-based tracing. Thus it is clear but lacks full 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 gives explicit context: "When to call: when tracing a tx by hash," and advises pairing with dero_get_sc for contract invocations and citing dero_docs_search. It provides clear usage context and alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer trace_transaction_with_context instead.

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