get_transaction_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the output format. It does not mention side effects, limitations, required permissions, or error conditions. While 'get' implies a read operation, the description provides no explicit safety or behavioral context.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and extra filler, achieving maximal clarity in minimal space.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and output type (natural language analysis) but lacks specifics about what the analysis includes or potential edge cases. Without an output schema or annotations, more detail might be expected, yet the simplicity of the tool (2 params) keeps it minimally adequate.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (chain as 'Blockchain network', transactionHash as 'Transaction hash to analyze'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the 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 identifies the tool's function: to 'get detailed analysis of a specific transaction' and explicitly notes the output is a 'natural language description'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_transfers (transfers only) or get_translated_transaction (translation), establishing a unique purpose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer applicability based solely on the vague term 'detailed analysis'.

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