get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Fetch' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when an invalid transaction ID is provided. The description mentions a return format ('Dictionary with transaction details') but doesn't specify what fields this dictionary contains.

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 appropriately concise with a clear three-part structure: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with minimal redundancy. The formatting with clear sections for Args and Returns enhances readability.

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 transaction retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what transaction details are returned, what blockchain or system this operates on, error handling, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity of transaction data and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and limitations.

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?

The description adds basic semantic information about the single parameter ('Transaction ID (hash)'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The description doesn't specify the expected format of the transaction ID (e.g., hex string, length requirements) or provide examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher than it would be for multiple undocumented parameters.

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 states the purpose ('Fetch transaction details') which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve transaction information. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this particular transaction fetch operation.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools available (like broadcast_transaction, decode_op_return, parse_envelope), there's no indication of when get_transaction is the appropriate choice versus other transaction-related tools.

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