Transaction details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the types of data returned (confirmation status, block height, fee, size, inputs/outputs), giving the agent a clear expectation of the operation's output. It does not mention error cases, but as a read-only getter, this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists specific data points. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 single-parameter getter without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information will be returned. The low complexity does not require additional details.

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%, with the 'txid' parameter already described as a 64-character hex string. The tool description adds minimal semantic value (only 'by txid'), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving Bitcoin transaction details by txid. It enumerates specific fields (confirmation status, block height, fee, size, inputs/outputs), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle fees, mempool, blocks, addresses, and prices.

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 the appropriate context: use when you have a transaction ID and need its details. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the distinct resource, the usage context is clear and unambiguous.

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