get_transaction_receipt

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, error conditions, or network implications). Since the annotations cover the safety profile, the minimal description does not create a conflict but also offers no extra 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary explanation.

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 tool is simple, and the annotations plus schema provide basic context. The description does not explain what a transaction receipt contains, but no output schema exists and the concept is well-known in blockchain contexts. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that contrast with it, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by indicating that the 'hash' parameter is the transaction hash. This clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it does not specify details like hex format or length. Given there is only one parameter, the semantic role is sufficiently conveyed.

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 operation ('Get a transaction receipt') and the input key ('by hash'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transaction, which retrieves transaction details rather than receipts. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_transaction or get_logs. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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