eth_getTransactionByHash

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

With no annotations, the description covers return value (transaction object or null), pending/not found behavior, and error conditions (InvalidParams, InternalError). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only query this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, Errors sections. It is concise but includes necessary details; no extraneous content. Could be slightly tighter by integrating the missing response_format param.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return object fields, null case, and error scenarios. It is complete for a query tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds format details for transactionHash and network default, but omits describing the 'response_format' parameter present in the schema, which slightly reduces added value.

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 'Retrieves detailed transaction information using its unique transaction hash', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eth_getTransactionByBlockHashAndIndex by focusing on hash lookup.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a transaction hash) and provides examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It could be improved by noting that for other lookup methods, use sibling tools.

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