xrp_get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a read operation implicitly ('get') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or that the result is on-ledger data. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core function. It is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as what 'details' means, whether it returns raw or decoded data, and any prerequisites or error conditions. It does not fully prepare an agent for all invocation scenarios.

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%, as the only parameter 'hash' has a description 'Transaction hash'. The description's 'by hash' aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic detail. It meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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: 'Get transaction details by hash' with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('transaction details'), and identifies the unique lookup key (hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrp_get_transaction_history and xrp_decode_transaction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternative tools or any exclusions, so the description relies solely on the implied use case of having a transaction hash, which is not explicit.

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