get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return formats, error conditions, or quirks like returning null for unknown hashes.

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 filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and the presence of get_transaction_receipt, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what is returned, how it differs from related tools, or how it handles missing or invalid hashes.

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 schema has one 'hash' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description merely restates 'by hash' without explaining what the hash is (e.g., hex string, 0x-prefixed) or any constraints like required format.

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 'Get a transaction by hash' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves transaction data by hash. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction_receipt because it targets a transaction resource rather than a receipt.

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 mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_transaction_receipt, nor does it clarify scenarios such as pending vs confirmed transactions.

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