hive_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description goes beyond them by specifying what is preserved, how custom JSON is decoded, and that gift-card items are counted separately. It also clarifies a nontrivial limitation (no game-processing or irreversibility guarantee) and notes the single-RPC behavior.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: preservation semantics, gift-card decoding, the processing caveat, and RPC cost. No fluff or redundant restatement of schema/annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reads, what it preserves, how it handles custom JSON, what it does not guarantee, and its RPC footprint. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without additional structured output information.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only restates 'by transaction ID', which mirrors the property name trx_id, and adds no detail about how the ID relates to confirmed transactions, where to find it, or how the pattern should be interpreted beyond the schema's regex. The schema pattern carries the format burden, but the description adds little semantic 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full signed Hive transaction by transaction ID'), then adds distinguishing behavior: preserving operations and signatures, decoding custom JSON, and counting gift-card items. It also explicitly scopes out game processing and irreversibility, which separates it from sibling tools like transaction_inspect or transaction_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 gives clear selection context: use this when you need the raw signed transaction with all operations and signatures preserved. The caveat 'Does not establish game processing or irreversibility' is a useful negative signal, though no sibling alternative is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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