Get Quai Transaction

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description specifies exactly what the tool returns, including the conditional nature of the receipt ('when available'), and explains the automatic zone-resolution behavior. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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?

Two focused sentences cover the operation, the return fields, and the important zone/shard caveat without repetition or filler. The core lookup behavior is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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 the simple two-parameter schema, fully documented parameters, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It supplies the return contract that would otherwise be missing due to the lack of an output schema.

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 both hash and network parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by hash but adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Look up a transaction on Quai Network by its hash') and names the returned details (from, to, value, gas, status) plus receipt. The automatic zone/shard resolution distinguishes it clearly from related tools like resolve_zone and from balance/block lookups.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need transaction details by hash. It also explicitly tells the agent it does not need to know the zone/shard in advance, preventing unnecessary calls to resolve_zone. However, it does not name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions.

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