Get transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these, such as the specific receipt fields and supported network options (mainnet, fuji, L1 keys, full RPC URL). This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 concise, with the core purpose stated first, followed by the network parameter details. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. The structure front-loads the most critical information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the inferred return fields and network options. It could mention potential edge cases (e.g., pending transactions or unavailable receipts), but these are inferred. Given the low complexity, the description suffices.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'hash' and 'network' in detail. The description repeats the network options but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does mention return fields, but those are not parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool fetches a transaction and its receipt by hash, specifying exactly what information is returned (status, gas used, logs, contract address created). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like avax_get_block or avax_get_balance, which operate on different resources.

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 implies when to use this tool (to retrieve transaction details by hash) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for selecting it. For example, it does not mention that avax_get_block is for block data or that avax_get_balance is for account balances. The usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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