get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on any other behavior such as error handling, rate limits, or whether a missing signature results in an error or null response. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose ('Get details') and includes a relevant qualifier ('from Solscan'). It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. However, it lacks any detail about what 'details' include (e.g., status, fee, block height), and the absence of an output schema makes the return value unclear. The description is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to predict the tool's response.

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?

The input schema lists only 'signature' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter or explain what a signature is or its expected format (e.g., base58 transaction ID). With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('details of a Solana transaction'), and source ('Solscan'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on accounts, tokens, blocks, or chain information, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is used to retrieve transaction details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_block_transactions or get_account_transactions). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving usage context only implied by the name and description.

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