getTransactionDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Gets'), it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information (action + resource + identifier).

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns complex transaction data, the description should provide more context about what information is returned, error handling, or usage constraints. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning the single parameter (signature) has no documentation in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by specifying it's a 'Solana transaction signature,' which helps the agent understand what type of identifier is expected. However, it doesn't provide format examples, length constraints, or validation rules that would be needed for proper usage.

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 action ('Gets detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Solana transaction by signature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools (analyzeWallet, fetchWalletActivity), which likely operate on different resources or provide different types of information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, when other tools should be used instead, or what distinguishes it from the sibling tools (analyzeWallet, fetchWalletActivity). The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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