payagents_get_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool retrieves and returns transaction details, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. The description gives a basic understanding but lacks full transparency.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently lists the key return fields and the target resource, making it easily scannable and understand.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a helpful overview of what the tool returns (status, rail, settlement mode, cryptographic proof). However, it does not describe the exact response structure, potential error cases, or any additional contextual details. It covers the essential information well but leaves some gaps.

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 fully describes the sole parameter (transaction_id) as 'The transaction ID or hash to look up.' The tool description adds the qualifier 'PayAgents' but does not introduce new semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Lookup') and resource ('PayAgents transaction ID'), and enumerates the fields returned (status, rail, settlement mode, cryptographic proof). This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools like payagents_pay_url (payment creation) and payagents_get_balance (balance retrieval).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It states what the tool does but lacks conditions like 'use when you need transaction details' or 'instead of get_balance for transaction-specific data'. The intended usage remains implicit rather than stated.

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