transaction_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the dual-read mechanism, the limitation that a game record does not prove processing of every operation in a multi-operation transaction, and the 'at most two logical reads' cost bound. This is meaningful transparency for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return contents are listed, the key limitation is stated, and the cost bound is given. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, its key limitation, and its cost. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens when the transaction is not found or when the game-result lookup fails, but the openWorldHint annotation and the 'where provable' qualifier partially cover this.

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. The description does not explicitly explain the trx_id parameter, but the tool name and description ('Inspect one transaction') make it clear that trx_id identifies the transaction. The pattern in the schema already constrains the format. The description could add a note about Hive transaction ID format, but the schema pattern and tool name carry most of the meaning.

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 ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('one transaction'), and the method ('full Hive read and the existing Splinterlands game-result lookup'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transaction_lookup and hive_transaction by describing its unique dual-source behavior and return contents.

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 need independent chain/game outcomes, decoded game JSON, and gift-card agreement for a single transaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'At most two logical reads' and the single-transaction scope provide clear context. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with transaction_lookup or hive_transaction.

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