stellar_get_transaction_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation behavior and fallback logic, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Efficiently covers key points.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about behavior (fallback, truncation). However, it does not describe the return format or structure beyond XDR, which could aid the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that operationIndex slices TransactionMeta when not truncated and that maxXdrCharsPerField controls truncation metadata. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it fetches transaction result/fee metadata XDR from Horizon with a Soroban RPC fallback. It specifies the resource (transaction meta) and the action (fetch), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stellar_get_ledger_meta.

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 usage for retrieving transaction metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The fallback mechanism is mentioned but not contextualized as a when-to-use guide.

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