transaction_inspect

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: how multi-operation transactions map to suffixed records, the stopping behavior on a failed chain read, the return shape (one entry per record plus batch_status), the caveat that a -N record is not proven to be Hive operation N, and hard limits (one Hive read, nine game lookups).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds concrete, non-redundant information (suffix behavior, failure handling, return shape, limits). It is dense and technical with a parenthetical measurement example, which slightly burdens readability, but there is little filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so (one entry per record in game_records plus a combined batch_status). Combined with the suffix semantics, failure behavior, and rate-limit note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: it explains that trx_id may carry a -N suffix, what inspecting a suffixed id does (whole transaction), and how the base id expands into multiple records. This is deep compensation for an otherwise undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one transaction') and names the exact mechanism used (full Hive read plus Splinterlands game-result lookup), so the agent knows precisely what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling transaction tools such as transaction_lookup, hive_transaction, or cards_trx_lookup, so the purpose is clear but unanchored relative to alternatives.

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 explains internal behavior useful for usage ('A trx_id with a -N suffix inspects the whole transaction') and the failure semantics, which implicitly tells the agent how to format input. But it never states when to choose this tool over transaction_lookup or hive_transaction, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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